| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.024 | 0.726 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | -0.233 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.318 | 0.310 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.492 | -0.189 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.269 | 0.352 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.755 | 0.826 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.462 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.703 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.420 | 0.409 |
Budapest University of Economics and Business presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of -0.098, which indicates a healthy and well-governed research environment. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in maintaining very low-risk levels for Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, effectively insulating itself from contrary national trends. This showcases a culture that prioritizes transparency, quality over quantity, and external validation. The university's thematic leadership, evidenced by its Top 10 national rankings in Business, Management and Accounting and Economics, Econometrics and Finance according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, is built on this solid foundation. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a notable rate of redundant output (salami slicing). These practices, if unaddressed, could undermine the institution's reputation for excellence and the efficient stewardship of research resources, contradicting the core values of any leading academic entity. By focusing on enhancing publication channel due diligence and promoting comprehensive research reporting, the university can further solidify its standing as a benchmark for both academic achievement and scientific integrity in the region.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.024, contrasting with the national average of 0.726. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate suggests effective governance that prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice to which the national context appears more susceptible. This controlled approach reinforces the clarity and integrity of the institution's collaborative footprint.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.099 compared to the national score of -0.233, the data points to an incipient vulnerability. Although both the university and the country operate within a low-risk range, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national baseline, warranting a proactive review. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a rate that edges above the norm, even slightly, may suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be strengthened. This signal serves as a constructive opportunity to ensure that institutional oversight remains rigorous and that potential vulnerabilities in the integrity culture are addressed before they escalate.
The institution's Z-score of -0.318 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.310, indicating a high degree of institutional resilience. The university effectively resists the national tendency towards higher self-citation, a practice that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. By maintaining a low rate, the institution demonstrates that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics. This commitment to external scrutiny and dialogue is a hallmark of a confident and globally integrated research culture, avoiding the risks of endogamous impact inflation observed elsewhere in the system.
A Z-score of 0.492 for the institution, compared to a low-risk national average of -0.189, signals a moderate deviation from the national standard. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This indicator suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. There is an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.269, a figure that reflects preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.352. This stark difference highlights the university's robust governance regarding authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, the institution's very low rate indicates it does not replicate the risk dynamics observed nationally, where author list inflation may be more common. This result points to a culture that values clear individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing necessary collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -0.755, the institution demonstrates significant resilience compared to the national average of 0.826. This low gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners. While it is common for institutions to rely on collaborations for impact, the national trend suggests a wider gap and thus a greater risk of 'dependent prestige'. The university’s result, however, reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are a direct result of its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term scientific autonomy and stability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413, well below the national average of -0.462, demonstrates low-profile consistency and an exceptionally strong integrity culture. The complete absence of risk signals in this area not only aligns with the secure national standard but surpasses it. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.268, marking a clear case of preventive isolation from the national context, which has a score of 0.703. This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, the university avoids excessive dependence on them, thus steering clear of potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues ensures that its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances global visibility, and avoids using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' that bypass rigorous peer review.
The institution's Z-score of 2.420 reveals high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.409. Although both operate within a medium-risk framework, the university is significantly more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. This high value warns of a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system but also suggests a cultural emphasis on volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, an area that requires immediate and focused attention.
