| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.291 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.402 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.146 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.807 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.743 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.253 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.307 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.796 | -0.228 |
Deustuko Unibertsitatea presents a robust profile of scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.368, indicating a performance that is not only sound but also demonstrates significant resilience against systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's primary strengths lie in its commitment to quality over quantity, evidenced by exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and redundant output, and its effective mitigation of hyper-authorship and impact dependency. These positive indicators are complemented by strong thematic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting excellence in areas such as Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, and Engineering. This foundation of integrity directly supports the university's mission to achieve "excellence in research and education" and "rigour in scientific research." However, the moderate risk associated with publishing in institutional journals presents a potential misalignment, as it could be perceived as limiting external validation and global impact, thereby posing a challenge to the goal of "transforming society." To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is encouraged to enhance its international publication strategy, ensuring its high-quality research receives the global scrutiny and recognition it merits, thus solidifying its role as a leader in responsible and impactful science.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.291, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Although the current level does not signal a problem, it indicates that the university's affiliation patterns are marginally more active than the national norm. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, it is advisable to monitor this trend to ensure it continues to reflect genuine collaboration rather than evolving into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.174. This lower rate suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, sometimes reflecting the responsible correction of honest errors. In this context, the university's favorable score indicates that its pre-publication review processes are effective, minimizing the incidence of errors that could later lead to retractions and reinforcing a culture of methodological integrity.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.402, significantly lower than the national average of -0.045. This result indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong integration into the global scientific conversation, avoiding the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.146, while in the low-risk category, is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.276. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals can occur, but this signal suggests a need to reinforce due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. To prevent this from escalating, it is crucial to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from potential reputational risks.
Deustuko Unibertsitatea shows remarkable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.807 in a national context that presents a medium risk (Z-score of 0.497). This demonstrates that the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the institution's low score indicates it successfully avoids practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This fosters a culture of transparency and ensures that individual accountability for research is maintained.
The institution displays significant institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.743, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.185. This result indicates that the university's control mechanisms effectively counter a national trend where institutional impact is often dependent on external partners. A low gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity for intellectual leadership rather than being an exogenous prestige derived from collaborations where it does not lead.
With a Z-score of -1.253, the institution shows low-profile consistency, as the near-total absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the low-risk national standard (-0.391). This exceptional result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of sheer volume, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 0.307 reflects a systemic pattern, as it is nearly identical to the national average of 0.278, both falling within the medium-risk range. This shared practice suggests a potential vulnerability across the national system. While in-house journals can be useful, a notable dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and validation.
The institution demonstrates exemplary low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -0.796, indicating a virtual absence of this risk practice, well below the already low national average of -0.228. This strong performance highlights a commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The data show the university effectively avoids 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
