University for Business and Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University for Business and Technology presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.776 reflecting both significant strengths and a critical, isolated vulnerability. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over practices such as redundant output, hyperprolific authorship, and the use of institutional journals, maintaining very low risk levels that set a standard of excellence. However, this strong foundation is severely compromised by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals, an issue that requires immediate and decisive action. Thematically, the institution shows clear leadership, ranking first in Kosovo for Earth and Planetary Sciences and securing strong second-place positions in areas like Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally threatened by this critical risk in its publication strategy. This practice directly contradicts the principles of quality and integrity, potentially devaluing its research and undermining its strong thematic standing. By addressing this specific vulnerability through targeted training and policy enforcement, the University can protect its otherwise robust integrity framework and fully leverage its academic strengths to achieve its strategic goals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.000 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.664, both falling within a low-risk range. This subtle elevation suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that while the rate is not yet alarming, it warrants observation to ensure it does not escalate. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, but it is crucial to monitor this trend to prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby ensuring that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborative work.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution's performance is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.216. This alignment indicates that the rate of retractions is consistent with expectations for its context, without any unusual signals of systemic issues. Retractions are complex events, and this low score suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning appropriately, handling the correction of the scientific record in a responsible and standard manner.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University for Business and Technology demonstrates notable institutional resilience in this area. Its low-risk Z-score of -0.782 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.838, indicating that its control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator represents a global red flag and the most urgent challenge for the institution. Its Z-score of 5.243 is critically high and significantly surpasses the already problematic national average of 2.866, positioning the center as a leader in a highly compromised national environment. This high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.711 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.713, reflecting a state of statistical normality. This low-risk profile indicates that the institution's authorship practices are standard for its context and do not show signs of inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, this result confirms the absence of concerning patterns elsewhere, suggesting that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are being maintained appropriately across the institution.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of 1.096, the institution shows a medium-risk gap, but its differentiated management of this issue is evident when compared to the higher national average of 1.894. This suggests the institution moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A positive gap indicates that overall impact is higher than the impact of research led by the institution itself, signaling a potential sustainability risk. The current value suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being fully structural. This invites reflection on how to build greater internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of its own intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits low-profile consistency and exemplary performance in this area, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, well below the low-risk national benchmark of -0.659. The complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This score indicates that the institution fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This reinforces the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

A perfect integrity synchrony is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of -0.268 exactly matching the national average. This alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this practice. The very low score demonstrates that the institution is not overly dependent on its own journals for dissemination. This avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes for visibility on a global stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation, demonstrating outstanding control over this practice. Its very low-risk Z-score of -0.468 is a clear positive outlier compared to the medium-risk signals observed at the national level (0.060). This shows the center does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. The low value confirms that the institution effectively prevents the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing substantial and significant new knowledge strengthens the scientific evidence base and respects the integrity of the peer review system.