| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.310 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.735 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.331 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.504 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.587 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.838 | -0.228 |
Universidad Cardenal Herrera CEU presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.446. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas critical to research quality, with very low risk signals in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. This solid foundation is complemented by strong thematic positioning, particularly in Veterinary sciences, where it ranks 11th in Spain, as well as notable performance in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Pharmacology, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, two areas of moderate risk emerge: a higher-than-average rate of multiple affiliations and a significant gap in impact between collaborative research and institution-led research. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, could challenge the university's mission to generate research that genuinely contributes to societal improvement from a foundation of "Christian humanism" and "social commitment." To fully align its operational reality with its stated values of excellence and service, the institution is encouraged to focus on strengthening its internal research leadership and refining its affiliation policies, thereby ensuring its scientific prestige is both structurally sound and endogenously driven.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.310 in this indicator, a value that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.476. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the comparatively higher rate here warrants a review. It is important to ensure that these affiliations are substantive and contribute meaningfully to research, rather than serving as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the university's unique academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the low-risk national standard (-0.174). This absence of risk signals indicates the presence of highly effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. While some retractions can signify responsible supervision, the near-total absence of such events here suggests that potential errors are caught early, preventing systemic failures and safeguarding the integrity of the university's scientific record. This performance is a clear indicator of a mature and responsible research culture.
The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.735, which is significantly lower and more rigorous than the national average of -0.045. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's markedly low rate demonstrates a strong integration with the global scientific community. This approach successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics, reflecting a genuine and externally recognized impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.331 is in the very low-risk category, aligning with and slightly improving upon the low-risk national context (-0.276). This result points to a commendable level of due diligence among its researchers in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, but this very low score confirms that the university is effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality media, thereby protecting its reputation, optimizing the use of research resources, and demonstrating high information literacy across its academic community.
Displaying notable institutional resilience, the university records a low-risk Z-score of -0.504, in contrast to the moderate risk observed at the national level (0.497). This indicates that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. The data suggests a culture that values transparency and individual accountability in authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby ensuring author lists accurately reflect substantive intellectual contributions.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 0.587 that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.185, even though both are in the medium-risk category. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that the university's scientific prestige is significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in external collaborations. Fostering more endogenous leadership is key to building long-term, structural excellence.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, a figure that stands out even within a low-risk national context (-0.391). This result strongly suggests a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. It indicates that the institutional culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over the simple inflation of publication metrics and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the moderate risk observed nationally (0.278). This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review ensures its scientific production achieves greater global visibility and is not perceived as using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.838 is firmly in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the already low national average (-0.228). This near-absence of risk signals is a strong indicator that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a mature research culture focused on producing coherent, significant contributions to knowledge, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
