University of San Francisco

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of San Francisco demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.405 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average. This is underpinned by very low risk levels in five of the nine key indicators, particularly in areas related to citation practices, author contributions, and publication channel selection. The institution's primary vulnerability is a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are most prominent in Environmental Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, where it holds top-tier national rankings. This strong integrity posture and thematic focus directly support the university's mission to foster "high quality scholarship and academic rigor" within a "socially responsible learning community." The identified risk, while moderate, could challenge the perception of transparency and social responsibility if not addressed, as it may suggest a focus on institutional credit over genuine collaboration. By proactively managing this single area of concern, the University of San Francisco can further solidify its reputation as an institution where academic excellence and ethical conduct are seamlessly integrated, fully realizing its vision of a "faith that does justice."

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.068, which contrasts with the national average of -0.514. This moderate deviation 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-than-average rate at the institution warrants a review of its causes. It is crucial to ensure that these affiliations reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could undermine the transparency of its research partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.126. This suggests that the level of risk is as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this score does not point to a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control. Instead, it reflects a rate of post-publication correction consistent with the broader scientific community, indicating that current supervision and integrity mechanisms are functioning at a standard level.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.255 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.566. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate is a strong positive indicator. It signals that the institution's work is validated by broad external scrutiny, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from endogamous impact inflation. This result confirms that the university's academic influence is driven by recognition from the global community, not by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.404 shows an integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.415, indicating total alignment in an environment of maximum scientific security. This performance demonstrates excellent due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the university effectively mitigates severe reputational risks and ensures its research resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices, reinforcing its commitment to credible scholarship.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.217, the institution exhibits institutional resilience by maintaining a low-risk profile in an area where the national average is a moderate-risk 0.594. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this result indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.579 reflects a position of institutional resilience, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.284. This low-risk score indicates that the university is effectively filtering out a systemic national trend where institutional impact is often dependent on external partners. A narrow gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a strong sign that its excellence metrics are the result of its own scholarly contributions, not merely strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.100 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.275, demonstrating low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. This very low rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output. It suggests the institution fosters an environment that discourages problematic practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony, as its performance is in total alignment with the national average of -0.220 in a very low-risk environment. This indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.903 signals a state of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed nationally, where the average score is 0.027. This exceptionally low rate is a significant strength, showing the institution does not replicate the national trend toward data fragmentation. It provides strong evidence of a culture that prioritizes significant, new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into "minimal publishable units." This commitment to coherent, impactful research strengthens the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer review system.