Aegean University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Aegean University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.133 that indicates a landscape of notable strengths alongside specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable resilience, effectively mitigating national risk trends in areas such as retracted and redundant output, suggesting robust internal quality controls. However, this is contrasted by significant alerts in hyper-authorship, which amplifies a national vulnerability to a critical level, and concerning deviations in multiple affiliations and use of institutional journals. These risks require strategic attention as they could undermine the university's strong academic standing, particularly in its leading fields according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which include Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. Ensuring the highest standards of transparency and integrity is paramount to aligning its operational practices with its institutional goals of excellence and societal impact, transforming this diagnostic into a roadmap for reinforcing its scientific leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.498, a value that marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.253. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at Aegean University could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence from the national standard warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantively justified and reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than a mechanism for metric enhancement.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience compared to the national Z-score of 0.054. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a higher national rate can point to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university’s significantly lower score is a positive indicator of a robust integrity culture and effective methodological rigor, successfully filtering out potential issues before they escalate.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.652, showing a high level of exposure when compared to the national average of 0.155. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context, the university's rate is notably more pronounced. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential risk of scientific isolation or the formation of "echo chambers," where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that its academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.119 reveals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.195. While both scores fall within the low-risk category, the university’s rate is slightly higher, suggesting a minor but noticeable signal that warrants review before it escalates. Sporadic publication in discontinued journals might occur due to a lack of information, but even a slightly elevated rate calls for reinforcing due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. This preventive measure is crucial to avoid reputational risks and ensure that institutional resources are not wasted on "predatory" or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 1.939, the university shows a significant risk that sharply accentuates the national vulnerability, which stands at a Z-score of 0.622. This indicates that the institution is amplifying a problematic trend present in the national system to a critical level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, such a high score outside those contexts is a major alert for author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This severe discrepancy requires an urgent and deep integrity assessment to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the prevalence of "honorary" or political authorship practices.

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

The university demonstrates differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.278 that is lower than the national average of 0.371. While a positive gap is common, a very wide one can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is overly dependent on external partners. The institution's more moderate gap suggests that it is more effectively building structural, internal capacity for intellectual leadership compared to its national peers. This indicates that its excellence metrics are more likely to result from genuine internal capabilities rather than solely from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows evidence of differentiated management with a Z-score of 0.224, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.402. This suggests the university is more effectively moderating risks that appear to be common in the country. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university’s lower score indicates a healthier approach, more successfully managing the risks of coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

This indicator raises a monitoring alert, as the university's Z-score of 0.053 represents an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.260, where the practice is nearly non-existent. This significant divergence requires a review of its causes. While in-house journals can be valuable for training, an excessive dependence on them can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice risks bypassing independent external peer review, which could limit the global visibility of its research and suggests the potential use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.071 in a national context where this is a more prevalent issue (Z-score of 0.506). This low score indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. The university’s excellent performance here suggests a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, successfully preventing practices that distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system.