| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.617 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.167 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.443 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.562 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.826 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.042 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.184 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.488 | -0.228 |
The Universidad Autonoma de Madrid demonstrates a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.181. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for retracted output, publications in discontinued journals, and redundant publications, indicating effective quality control and dissemination practices. This solid foundation is complemented by a prudent, better-than-average management of multiple affiliations and institutional self-citation. However, strategic attention is required for two key areas: a significant rate of hyper-authored output and a medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These vulnerabilities could subtly undermine the institution's mission to foster innovation and excellence. The university's outstanding performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its Top 5 national rankings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, underscores its capacity for high-impact research. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of social responsibility and knowledge transfer, it is recommended that the institution addresses the identified authorship and impact-dependency risks, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is built upon transparent, sustainable, and internally-led scientific contributions.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.617 for multiple affiliations, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.476. This demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to research collaboration, suggesting that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a low risk of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of clear and transparent contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.437, significantly below the national average of -0.174, the institution displays an exemplary record in minimizing retracted publications. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a national environment that also maintains control in this area. A rate significantly lower than the average is a powerful indicator of a resilient integrity culture and robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms. It suggests that potential methodological errors are effectively addressed before dissemination, preventing systemic failures and reinforcing the reliability of the university's scientific output.
The university maintains a Z-score of -0.167 for institutional self-citation, a more conservative figure than the Spanish average of -0.045. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's controlled rate mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a healthy integration with the global research community, where the institution's work is validated through external scrutiny rather than relying on internal dynamics to inflate its perceived impact.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.443, a very low value that is well below the national average of -0.276. This result demonstrates a consistent and effective policy for selecting publication venues, aligning with national standards for responsible research. A low rate in this indicator is a strong sign of high due diligence, confirming that the institution's researchers are successfully avoiding predatory or low-quality channels. This protects the university's reputation and ensures that its scientific resources are invested in credible and impactful dissemination.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.562 in hyper-authored output, a value that starkly contrasts with the national medium-risk average of 0.497. This finding suggests that the university is not only participating in but actively amplifying a national vulnerability related to extensive author lists. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' such a high rate can be a red flag for author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This metric warrants an urgent internal review to distinguish between legitimate large-scale collaborations and potential 'honorary' authorship, which could compromise the integrity of the institution's research record.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.826 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.185, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This high exposure suggests the university is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely exogenous, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.042, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is slightly higher than the national average of -0.391, though both remain at a low-risk level. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a precautionary alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.184 for output in its own journals, a figure that is moderately lower than the national average of 0.278. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. While in-house journals can be useful, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The institution's controlled rate mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and suggests that its research largely undergoes independent external peer review, thereby ensuring its validation and visibility within the global scientific community.
The institution achieves an excellent Z-score of -0.488 for redundant output, placing it at a very low risk level and comfortably below the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates a consistent and effective defense against practices like 'salami slicing.' The absence of risk signals in this area, in alignment with the national context, confirms that the university promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through data fragmentation. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific evidence base and reflects a responsible use of academic resources.
