National School of Political Science and Public Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National School of Political Science and Public Administration (SNSPA) demonstrates an outstanding profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.418 that indicates robust internal governance and a commitment to responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of redundant output, publication in institutional journals, and multiple affiliations, positioning it as a benchmark of integrity within the national context. The only area requiring strategic attention is a moderate gap between its overall scientific impact and the impact of research where its authors hold leadership positions. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, SNSPA's thematic strengths are concentrated in Arts and Humanities (Top 10 in Romania), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 12), and Social Sciences (Top 15). This strong integrity profile directly supports the institution's mission to foster critical thinking and develop high-quality research, as ethical conduct is the foundation of academic excellence. To fully align with its mission of developing internal research capacity, the institution is encouraged to leverage this solid ethical foundation to foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, thereby ensuring its long-term scientific prestige is both sustainable and self-generated.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.375, significantly lower than the national average of -0.712. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard of responsible affiliation practices. The institution's clear absence of risk signals in this area suggests that its affiliations are managed transparently and legitimately, reflecting genuine researcher mobility or formal partnerships rather than strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.136, the institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to quality control. This suggests that its pre-publication review mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a low rate like this indicates that the institution's integrity culture is robust, effectively preventing the systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or lack of methodological rigor that could otherwise lead to a higher volume of retracted works.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.240, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.355, which falls into a medium-risk category. This disparity highlights the institution's resilience, showing that its internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms that its work is validated by the global scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through internal dynamics rather than external recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.229, demonstrating strong performance against a national average of 0.639. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience and effective filtering of low-quality publication venues, a risk more prevalent at the national level. A low rate is critical, as a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals would signal a failure in due diligence. The institution’s performance suggests its researchers are well-informed in selecting dissemination channels, thereby protecting its reputation and avoiding the waste of resources on predatory or substandard outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.618, the institution operates well below the national average of 0.057. This demonstrates that the institution effectively mitigates the risk of authorship inflation that is more common in its environment. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. The institution's low score suggests a culture where authorship is assigned based on meaningful contribution, avoiding practices like honorary or political authorship and reinforcing transparency.

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

The institution records a Z-score of 0.405 in the gap between its total impact and the impact of its researcher-led output. While this represents a medium-risk signal, it is significantly better than the national average of 0.824, indicating a differentiated management approach that moderates a common national trend. This indicator flags a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external collaborations. The institution's more contained gap suggests a healthier balance, but it still invites strategic reflection on how to strengthen internal capacity to ensure excellence metrics are driven by its own intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.593 is notably lower than the national average of -0.259, reflecting a prudent profile where research productivity remains within credible bounds. This suggests that the institution's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.842. This signals a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the high-risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest. The institution's extremely low rate demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution has an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.186, in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.136. This result demonstrates a state of preventive isolation, where the institution’s practices are entirely disconnected from the risk dynamics present in the national system. A high rate of redundant output, or "salami slicing," indicates the artificial inflation of productivity by fragmenting studies into minimal units. The institution's very low score is a testament to its focus on producing significant, coherent new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.