| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.632 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.634 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.364 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.483 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.479 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.221 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.026 | -0.228 |
Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio demonstrates a robust overall profile in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.494 indicating performance significantly better than the international average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research quality and autonomy, evidenced by very low risk levels in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these sound practices support notable thematic strengths, particularly in Dentistry, Veterinary, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, where the university holds strong national rankings. However, two indicators—Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Rate of Redundant Output—present a moderate risk, deviating from the national trend. These specific vulnerabilities could subtly undermine the institutional mission of providing a "Quality University Education," as they may prioritize metric-driven behaviors over the substantive "integral development" of knowledge. To fully align its practices with its stated mission, the university is advised to focus on reinforcing policies in these two areas, thereby solidifying its already strong foundation of scientific integrity and ensuring its reputation for excellence is built on transparent and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.632, which contrasts with the national average of -0.476. This moderate deviation suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this heightened rate warrants a review of institutional affiliation policies. It is crucial to ensure that these patterns reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the university's unique contribution to research outputs.
With a Z-score of -0.634, well below the national average of -0.174, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate strongly suggests that the university's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice and safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.364 is notably lower than the national average of -0.045. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this lower rate is a positive signal that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting healthy integration and external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.483 is significantly lower than the country's score of -0.276. This excellent result demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk aligns with a low-risk national environment. This indicates that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university effectively mitigates severe reputational risks and prevents the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-impact practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.479, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.497, which indicates a medium risk level. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and problematic practices like 'honorary' authorship. This fosters a culture of transparency and ensures that author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions, thereby preserving individual accountability.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.221 compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.185, the institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from adverse national trends. This result is a key indicator of scientific maturity and sustainability. It signals that the university's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This structural strength ensures that its high-impact research is a direct result of its own capabilities, avoiding the sustainability risks associated with a reputation built on collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard, is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests a focus on quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This commitment to a balanced output reinforces the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly different from the national average of 0.278, a value that falls within the medium risk range. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution actively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.026, showing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.228. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A higher rate of bibliographic overlap may alert to the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, and thus requires careful monitoring.
