| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.638 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.366 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.731 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.081 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.069 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.180 | -0.228 |
The Universidad a Distancia de Madrid (UDIMA) presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.172 indicating general alignment with expected standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of internal governance, showing very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal a robust culture of external validation and a focus on quality over quantity. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest vulnerabilities in affiliation transparency and the selection of publication venues. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Social Sciences. The identified risks, particularly publishing in discontinued journals, could undermine the institutional mission to leverage technology for quality education, as it exposes research to low-quality channels. To fully realize its mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that UDIMA focuses on developing clearer guidelines for author affiliations and enhancing information literacy programs to ensure researchers select high-integrity publication outlets, thereby reinforcing its already solid foundation of scientific rigor.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.638, which contrasts with the national average of -0.476. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at the institution warrants a review. This signal suggests a potential vulnerability to strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” where affiliations are used to inflate institutional credit rather than reflect substantive collaboration. A closer examination of affiliation patterns is recommended to ensure they align with genuine scientific cooperation and institutional policy.
With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position than the national average of -0.174. This reflects a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its pre-publication processes with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a lower-than-average rate points towards effective quality control mechanisms and a responsible supervisory culture. This performance indicates that systemic failures leading to retractions are less frequent, reinforcing the institution's commitment to a reliable scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -1.366 is exceptionally low, positioning it far below the national average of -0.045. This result demonstrates a laudable absence of risk signals and aligns with a national environment of low concern, though the university's performance is notably stronger. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low value confirms that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a clear indicator that the university's academic influence is validated by the global community's recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, showcasing a commitment to external scrutiny and broad impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.731 marks a significant point of concern, representing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.276. This disparity suggests the university is more exposed than its peers to the risks associated with publishing in low-quality venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.081, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.497. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks observed at the country level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the university successfully avoids practices such as author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research.
With a Z-score of 0.069, the institution's performance is better than the national average of 0.185, although both fall within a medium-risk range. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that appears common across the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where prestige is dependent on external partners. The institution's smaller gap indicates it is more effective than its national peers at building structural, internal capacity and exercising intellectual leadership in its collaborations, which is a crucial step toward ensuring its scientific excellence is endogenous and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.391. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with the low-risk national environment but highlights the university's exemplary standards. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this very low indicator is a strong positive signal, suggesting an institutional culture that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over raw metrics, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.278, which indicates a medium risk. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' and for building genuine global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.180 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.228. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context. The data suggests that the university's practices concerning bibliographic overlap are in line with national standards, showing no unusual signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This alignment reflects a conventional and healthy approach to building upon previous work without over-burdening the scientific record with minimally significant publications.
