| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.044 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.160 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.272 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.198 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.067 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.353 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.008 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.341 | -0.228 |
The Universidad de Alcala demonstrates a robust and commendable profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.184 indicating a very low-risk operational environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its prudent management of retractions, self-citation, and redundant publications, consistently outperforming national averages. Furthermore, it shows exceptional resilience by maintaining a low dependency on external collaborations for impact, a notable achievement given the national trend. While the overall picture is positive, areas for proactive monitoring include a medium-level incidence of hyper-authored output and publications in institutional journals, although even in these cases, the university shows better control than its national peers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific excellence is particularly pronounced in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 18th in Spain), Engineering (19th), and both Chemistry and Physics and Astronomy (20th). This strong integrity profile directly supports its mission to ensure "quality teaching" and the responsible "creation and transmission of knowledge." The identified medium-risk areas, if left unaddressed, could subtly undermine this commitment to quality. Therefore, a strategic focus on refining authorship and internal publication policies will not only mitigate potential risks but also reinforce the institution's leadership in academic excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.044, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This subtle divergence suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that the university shows early signals of this activity that are less common in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight uptick warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and justified, preventing any potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution displays a more favorable profile than the national average of -0.174. This demonstrates a prudent approach, suggesting that the university's internal processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can signify responsible supervision, but a lower rate indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are likely more effective. This strong performance points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, reducing the need for post-publication corrections.
The institution's Z-score of -0.160 is significantly lower than the country's average of -0.045, reflecting a prudent and well-managed profile. This indicates that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard in avoiding excessive self-validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this lower rate suggests the institution successfully avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This performance reinforces that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.272 is almost identical to the national average of -0.276, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context, showing that its researchers' publication practices align with those of their national peers. This synchrony at a very low-risk level confirms that there is no systemic vulnerability related to the selection of dissemination channels, and the institution is not exposed to the reputational risks associated with publishing in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.198, while at a medium level, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.497. This reflects a differentiated management strategy, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. In fields outside of "Big Science," high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's ability to contain this practice better than its peers suggests a stronger institutional culture promoting transparency and meaningful contributions in authorship.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.067 (low risk), in stark contrast to the national average of 0.185 (medium risk). This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A wide positive gap signals that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's low score, however, indicates that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific prestige is both structural and sustainable.
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is in close alignment with the national average of -0.391, representing statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context, with no significant deviation from the national low-risk pattern. This indicates that there are no widespread instances of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, suggesting a healthy balance between productivity and the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.008, though in the medium-risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.278. This points to differentiated management, where the university moderates risks that appear more common across the country. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution reduces the risk of bypassing independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production undergoes more rigorous, competitive validation and achieves greater global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.341 is notably lower than the national average of -0.228, indicating a prudent profile. This suggests the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively discouraging the practice of "salami slicing." A lower rate of redundant output demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than fragmenting research to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This approach upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and respects the resources of the peer review system.
