| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.585 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.390 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.474 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.935 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.129 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.514 |
The Hertie School of Governance demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.383 that significantly outperforms the national baseline. This strong performance is anchored in exceptional results across multiple indicators, particularly a near-total absence of risks related to Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, Redundant Output, and publishing in Discontinued or Institutional Journals. These strengths reflect a culture that prioritizes external validation, quality over quantity, and adherence to global standards. The primary areas for strategic attention are a higher-than-average Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a moderate Gap between total and led impact, which warrant review to ensure they align with institutional goals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the school's academic strengths are clearly concentrated in Social Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. This strong integrity profile directly supports the institution's mission to foster "outstanding scholarship" and a "deep sense of ethical responsibility." By proactively addressing the identified moderate risks, the Hertie School can further solidify its reputation for excellence, ensuring its operational practices are in perfect alignment with its commitment to producing leaders guided by the common good.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.585, while the national average is 0.084. Although this indicator falls within the medium-risk category for both the institution and the country, the school's score indicates a higher exposure to this dynamic compared to the national average. This suggests that the institution is more prone to the practices that trigger this alert. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that these affiliations consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.033, compared to a national average of -0.212. Both scores are in the low-risk range, but the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national baseline, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors. However, a rate that, while low, is still above the national standard suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication could be an area for reinforcement to prevent any potential systemic issues from escalating.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.390, a figure that indicates a near-total absence of risk, standing in stark contrast to the national average of -0.061. This demonstrates an exceptionally low reliance on internal citations, positioning the school's research as highly integrated within the global scientific community. This performance effectively mitigates any risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. The data strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad external recognition rather than internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and outwardly focused research culture.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.474, which is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.455. This integrity synchrony signifies a shared, robust standard of practice in avoiding problematic publication venues. The near-zero presence in discontinued journals indicates that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects its research from reputational risks and ensures that scientific output is channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, preventing the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.935, demonstrating a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.994. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal controls and academic norms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The school's low rate suggests a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability and promoting transparency in contribution.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.129, which, while in the medium-risk category, is notably better than the national average of 0.275. This reflects a differentiated management of collaboration-based impact, suggesting the institution moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A positive gap signals some reliance on external partners for impact; however, the institution's smaller gap indicates a healthier balance and a stronger internal capacity for intellectual leadership. This points toward a more sustainable model where scientific prestige is increasingly generated by structural, internal capabilities rather than being primarily dependent on external collaborations.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a complete absence of this risk, in stark opposition to the medium-risk national average of 0.454. This signals a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This effectively prevents potential imbalances, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, showing total alignment with the national average of -0.263. This integrity synchrony at a very low-risk level demonstrates a shared commitment to external validation across the German academic system. The negligible rate of publication in its own journals confirms that the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.186, a very low-risk value that signifies a clear disconnection from the national trend, where the average is 0.514 (medium risk). This state of preventive isolation indicates that the institution's research culture strongly discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The exceptionally low score is evidence of a focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing work into minimal publishable units. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizes the generation of new knowledge over metric-driven volume.
