| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.492 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.784 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.583 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.332 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.841 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.078 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.978 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.015 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.707 | -0.228 |
The University of Almeria presents a robust and balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of -0.082. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining the originality and sustainability of its research, with very low risk signals in redundant output, hyperprolific authorship, and dependency on external leadership for impact. These strengths are complemented by effective mitigation of risks related to hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals, where the University performs better than the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically a moderate deviation from national norms in the rates of retracted output and institutional self-citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's thematic excellence is concentrated in areas such as Psychology, Environmental Science, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. These fields directly support its mission to foster "economic and social development" through knowledge transfer. The identified risks, particularly those affecting the credibility of its publications, could challenge the "quality research function" central to this mission. Therefore, a focused effort to strengthen pre-publication quality controls and promote broader external validation will be crucial to ensure that the institution's recognized thematic strengths translate into unimpeachable, high-impact contributions, fully aligning its operational reality with its strategic vision.
The institution's Z-score of -0.492 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.476. This alignment indicates that the University's affiliation patterns are normal for its context and do not suggest any unusual activity. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current rate at the University of Almeria is consistent with legitimate academic practices, such as researcher mobility and partnerships between universities and other organizations, reflecting a standard level of collaboration without raising integrity concerns.
With a Z-score of 0.784, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.174. This discrepancy suggests that the University is more exposed to this risk factor than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average can be a symptom of systemic issues. This indicator serves as an alert that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently than expected, potentially pointing to a vulnerability in its integrity culture that warrants immediate qualitative review by management to understand the root causes.
The institution's Z-score of 0.583 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.045, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately higher rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that a portion of the institution's academic influence may be amplified by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.332, which is consistent with and even slightly better than the low-risk national standard of -0.276. This absence of risk signals indicates strong institutional governance in the selection of publication channels. The data confirms that the University's scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, effectively protecting it from the reputational damage associated with 'predatory' practices and ensuring resources are well-invested.
The institution shows remarkable resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.841, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.497. This suggests that the University's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk present in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', the institution's low score indicates a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship. This fosters individual accountability and transparency, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.078, the institution demonstrates a preventive isolation from the dependency risks observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.185). This exceptionally low score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is strong and self-sufficient. This is a sign of robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not hold a primary role.
The institution's Z-score of -0.978 is in a very low-risk category, showing even stronger control than the already low-risk national average of -0.391. This near-total absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data confirms that the University is free from cases of extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding associated risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution displays institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.015, effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.278). This low rate of publication in its own journals indicates that the University avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By ensuring its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, the institution promotes global visibility and validates its research through competitive international standards rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.707, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.228. This low-profile consistency highlights a strong institutional culture that prioritizes substantive contributions over metric inflation. The data suggests that the practice of fragmenting a single study into 'minimal publishable units' is not prevalent, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and ensuring that published work represents significant new knowledge.
