| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.810 | -0.470 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | -0.299 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.364 | -0.022 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.357 | -0.338 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.191 | 0.595 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.194 | 0.586 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.684 | -0.712 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.334 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.093 | -0.044 |
Alma Mater Europaea University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.461 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates a commendable commitment to external validation, evidenced by very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and publication in its own journals. These positive indicators suggest a culture that prioritizes global engagement and independent peer review. However, this is contrasted by significant-to-medium risks in other areas, most notably a critically high rate of multiple affiliations, alongside concerning levels of publication in discontinued journals, dependency on external leadership for impact, and a tendency towards hyperprolific authorship. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a solid national position in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, ranking 5th in Slovenia in both fields. This academic standing, however, is potentially undermined by the identified integrity risks. The institutional mission to deliver "top-quality" and "competitive" European-oriented programmes is directly challenged by practices that could be perceived as prioritizing metric inflation over genuine scientific contribution. To fully realize its mission and safeguard its reputation, the university is advised to leverage its strengths in external validation to develop robust internal policies that address affiliation strategies and publication due diligence, ensuring its operational practices fully align with its stated values of quality and integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.810 in this indicator, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.470. This atypical level of risk activity, in a country where such practices are uncommon, requires a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The magnitude of this indicator suggests an urgent need to review authorship and affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and contribution, rather than a mechanism for artificially enhancing institutional rankings.
With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution's rate of retracted output is low and broadly aligns with the national context (Z-score: -0.299). However, the slightly higher value points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. Nevertheless, this minor elevation serves as a signal to proactively reinforce pre-publication quality control mechanisms. A preventative review of internal review processes could ensure that potential systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity are identified and corrected, maintaining the institution's commitment to a reliable scientific record.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.364, which is significantly lower than the country's already low-risk average of -0.022. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy and externally-oriented research culture. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate effectively dismisses any concern of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a robust and outward-looking scientific practice.
A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 0.357, indicating a medium risk level that is highly unusual for the national standard, where the country average is a very low -0.338. This disparity requires a thorough review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.191, a very low-risk value that signals a commendable preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.595). By not replicating the medium-risk trend seen across the country, the university demonstrates strong governance over authorship practices. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute accountability. The institution's low score suggests that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, thereby maintaining transparency and individual accountability in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 1.194 reflects a medium-risk gap, a systemic pattern also observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.586). However, the institution's value indicates a higher exposure to this risk, as its gap is considerably wider than the country's average. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. A wide gap signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships. This finding warrants a strategic review to bolster internal research leadership and ensure long-term scientific autonomy.
With a Z-score of 0.684, the institution shows a medium-risk level for hyperprolific authors, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.712. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity than its national peers to risk factors associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require management attention.
The institution achieves an excellent Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low-risk profile that effectively isolates it from the prevalent national trend (Z-score: 1.334). This preventive stance is a significant strength. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the institution demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. This approach ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, reinforcing its credibility and reach in the international academic community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.093 is indicative of a low and statistically normal risk level, closely aligned with the national average of -0.044. This alignment suggests the institution's publication practices are as expected for its context and size. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The low score here confirms that such practices are not a systemic issue, and that the institution's researchers are, on the whole, adhering to ethical standards of presenting new knowledge without unnecessarily over-burdening the review system.
