| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.017 | 0.428 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | -0.199 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.018 | -0.197 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.476 | -0.476 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.960 | 0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.051 | 0.241 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.296 | 0.213 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.178 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.071 | -0.244 |
Copenhagen Business School (CBS) demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.314. This performance is characterized by exceptional strengths in areas that underscore a commitment to external validation and intellectual leadership, such as minimal rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and a negligible gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. These strengths are foundational to its mission of delivering value and sustainable development through research-based education. The institution's global leadership is further confirmed by its outstanding SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its number one national ranking in "Business, Management and Accounting" and "Economics, Econometrics and Finance." However, to fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of providing a "sound basis of knowledge," attention is warranted in two areas: the rate of multiple affiliations and the rate of redundant output. Addressing these moderate risk signals will ensure that the institution's reputation for excellence is unequivocally supported by practices that prioritize transparency and substantive contribution over metric optimization, thereby solidifying its role as a global leader in both research and ethical conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.017, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.428. This indicates that Copenhagen Business School is more exposed to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a greater propensity for practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to review affiliation policies to ensure they consistently reflect substantive collaboration and transparently represent the institution's contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's rate of retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.199, although both figures remain in a low-risk range. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants preventive monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate that edges above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be reinforced. A proactive review of these processes would help ensure that any potential for systemic failure or recurring malpractice is addressed before it escalates.
Copenhagen Business School exhibits an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.018, which is significantly better than the country's already low-risk score of -0.197. This demonstrates a strong culture of external validation and a healthy integration into the global scientific community. The institution effectively avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is scrutinized and recognized externally. This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's performance in this area is exemplary, with a Z-score of -0.476 that is identical to the national average. This perfect alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security and integrity. It indicates that the institution exercises rigorous due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. This practice is critical for avoiding reputational damage and ensuring that scientific output is not channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality publications.
The institution demonstrates significant resilience against the national trend in hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -0.960 compared to the country's moderate-risk score of 0.325. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
Copenhagen Business School shows a profound disconnection from the risk dynamics observed nationally, with a Z-score of -1.051 in stark contrast to the country's moderate-risk score of 0.241. This result indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This is a clear sign of a sustainable and robust internal capacity for excellence, confirming that its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution effectively isolates itself from the national tendency towards hyperprolific authorship, posting a Z-score of -1.296 against a national average of 0.213. This preventive stance signals a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, Copenhagen Business School mitigates the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, ensuring that its focus remains on the integrity of the scientific record rather than the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.178. This near-total operational silence in this indicator is a powerful statement of commitment to external, independent peer review. By eschewing internal channels, the institution avoids any potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy, reinforcing its global outlook and ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard, competitive international processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.071 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.244. This suggests a greater sensitivity within the institution to practices that can lead to redundant publications. This alert warrants a review, as a pattern of massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. Such practices can distort the scientific evidence and prioritize volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
