| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.225 | -1.210 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | 2.109 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.936 | -0.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.344 | 3.512 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.607 | -0.008 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.107 | 1.929 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
6.069 | 7.012 |
The University of Medicine, Tirana, demonstrates a dual profile of scientific integrity, characterized by exceptional strengths in some areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution exhibits robust control over practices such as institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and retractions, effectively insulating itself from negative national trends. However, this is contrasted by significant risk levels in hyper-authorship, dependency on external collaboration for impact, and redundant publication. As a national leader in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's mission to uphold the "highest professional standards" is directly challenged by these integrity risks. Practices that prioritize volume over substance or rely on external leadership for prestige can undermine its commitment to excellence and social responsibility. To secure its leadership position, the university should leverage its areas of integrity strength to implement targeted governance reforms, ensuring its prominent reputation is built upon a foundation of transparent, sustainable, and high-impact research.
The institution shows a low but noticeable rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.225), which represents a slight divergence from the national context where this practice is virtually non-existent (Z-score: -1.210). This suggests the emergence of risk signals at the university that are not yet apparent elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this initial signal warrants monitoring to ensure it reflects genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit.
The university demonstrates remarkable resilience against national trends in publication retractions. With a Z-score of -0.268, its rate is very low, in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed across the country (Z-score: 2.109). This indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are acting as an effective firewall, preventing the systemic issues that may be affecting its national peers. This strong performance suggests a robust integrity culture where honest correction of errors is managed effectively, avoiding the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a high rate would imply.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.936), a signal of robust external validation that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.028). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community. Such a low value confirms that the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-referencing, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than endogamous dynamics that might artificially inflate its perceived impact.
While the institution shows a medium-risk level for publishing in discontinued journals (Z-score: 2.344), it demonstrates relative containment compared to the more critical situation at the national level (Z-score: 3.512). Although risk signals are present, this suggests the university operates with more order and better due diligence than the national average. Nevertheless, a medium Z-score constitutes a critical alert, indicating that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's practices and the national norm regarding hyper-authorship. The university's Z-score is significant at 1.607, while the national average shows no such risk (Z-score: -0.008). This atypical activity requires a deep integrity assessment. As the university's core disciplines are not typically associated with 'Big Science' projects that legitimately require massive author lists, this high Z-score can indicate systemic author list inflation. It serves as a critical signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices that dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The university significantly accentuates a vulnerability already present in the national system regarding its impact dependency. Its Z-score for the gap between total and led-publication impact is critically high at 4.107, far exceeding the medium-risk national average (Z-score: 1.929). This wide positive gap signals a major sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners and not on its own structural capacity. This invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution is in perfect alignment with its national environment regarding hyperprolific authorship, with both sharing an identical and very low Z-score of -1.413. This integrity synchrony indicates a context of maximum scientific security in this area. The complete absence of this risk signal confirms that the university's research culture prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume, successfully avoiding the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can lead to coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national value, the university demonstrates total alignment with a national environment free from risks associated with publishing in institutional journals. This integrity synchrony shows that the institution is not dependent on its own publications, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and validating research through standard competitive channels rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.
The university's rate of redundant output is at a significant risk level (Z-score: 6.069), marking it as a global outlier. However, this constitutes an attenuated alert, as the institution shows slightly more control than the even more critical national average (Z-score: 7.012). This high value is a strong warning against the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
