| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.065 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.220 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.465 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.081 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.344 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.170 | -0.059 |
Tomas Bata University in Zlin demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.292 that positions it favorably against the national backdrop. The institution exhibits remarkable control and resilience across a majority of indicators, particularly in preventing retractions, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, effectively isolating itself from systemic risks prevalent in the country. Key strengths are evident in its top-tier national rankings in Business, Management and Accounting (2nd), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3rd), and Chemistry (5th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two areas of vulnerability: a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals and a tendency towards redundant output (salami slicing). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks could potentially undermine core academic values of excellence and social responsibility by affecting the quality and impact of its research. To fully align its operational practice with its demonstrated thematic leadership, it is recommended that the university focuses strategic efforts on enhancing author guidance regarding publication venues and promoting research of greater substance over volume, thereby solidifying its standing as a benchmark for integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.065, a low-risk value that contrasts with the national average of 0.229, which falls into the medium-risk category. This difference suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates that it is not exposed to the risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution shows a virtually non-existent risk signal, standing in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.034. This demonstrates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics concerning research quality control that are present in its environment. A rate significantly lower than the average is a positive sign, suggesting that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This robust pre-publication scrutiny reinforces a strong integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.
The university's Z-score of -0.220 is well within the low-risk range, differing significantly from the Czech Republic's medium-risk average of 0.386. This indicates effective institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be mitigating the national tendency towards higher self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's low rate demonstrates that it avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of 0.465 places it in the medium-risk category, a notable deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.153. This suggests the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, warranting a review of its publication practices. This score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. There is an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.081, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, clearly distinguishing itself from the national medium-risk average of 0.375. This gap highlights the university's institutional resilience, suggesting its policies or academic culture effectively moderate the national trend towards inflated author lists. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' a low rate of hyper-authorship is a positive indicator of good practice. It suggests that the institution successfully promotes transparency and individual accountability, avoiding the dilution of responsibility that can occur with 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution reports a Z-score of -0.344, a low-risk value that is significantly healthier than the national medium-risk average of 0.862. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university avoids the dependency on external partners for impact that is more common nationally. A narrow or negative gap, as seen here, is a sign of sustainability and robust internal capacity. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, with its excellence metrics resulting from research where it exercises genuine intellectual leadership rather than relying on strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national average of -0.401. This signals a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score in this area is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting an environment free from risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk, in stark contrast to the Czech Republic's medium-risk average of 1.180. This significant difference points to a successful preventive isolation, whereby the university avoids the national trend of relying on internal publication channels. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution's low dependence on them mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score of 0.170 falls into the medium-risk range, representing a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.059. This indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers, which calls for attention. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The university should review its incentive structures to ensure they prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
