| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.949 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.085 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.358 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.039 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.361 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.883 | -0.228 |
Universidad Antonio de Nebrija presents a robust and generally sound scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.099 indicating a performance aligned with expected standards, yet marked by specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in multiple key areas, with very low risk signals in publication channel selection, intellectual leadership, authorship practices, and research fragmentation. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a moderate signal in Institutional Self-Citation, which warrant immediate investigation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Engineering. The identified risk in multiple affiliations could potentially undermine the mission's emphasis on the genuine "creation and criticism of science" if it reflects strategic credit inflation rather than authentic collaboration. To safeguard its commitment to excellence and social responsibility, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research governance to analyze and address the root causes of its outlier indicators, ensuring all collaborative practices transparently support its core academic values.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.949, a value that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.476. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, such a disproportionately high rate signals a critical vulnerability. It strongly suggests the possibility of systemic practices aimed at strategically inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping.” An urgent qualitative review is necessary to determine the drivers behind this metric and ensure that affiliations reflect substantive collaboration rather than a mechanism that could compromise the institution's reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, performing even better than the national average of -0.174. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of retractions suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place prior to publication are effective and robust. This performance reflects a healthy integrity culture where the correction of the scientific record is handled responsibly and systemically, minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.085 shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.045. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to citation practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.358 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard (-0.276). The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national environment and indicates strong due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. This practice effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with publishing in media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, confirming a commendable level of information literacy among its researchers.
With a Z-score of -1.039, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.497. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. This result indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices of 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.361 places it in the very low-risk category, a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.185). This outstanding result signals that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, not dependent on external partners. The minimal gap indicates that excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity and that the university exercises strong intellectual leadership in its research, a key indicator of a mature and self-sufficient scientific ecosystem.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that demonstrates low-profile consistency and even improves upon the low-risk national average of -0.391. The absence of signals in this indicator is a positive sign of a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research production. It suggests that the university's environment does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, showing a preventive isolation from the national context, which has a medium-risk score of 0.278. This is a significant strength, indicating that the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest by prioritizing independent, external peer review. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.883 is in the very low-risk range, a sign of low-profile consistency that is notably better than the national low-risk average of -0.228. This result indicates a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The near absence of this risk signal suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a common feature of the university's research culture, which instead prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge.
