Universidad de Extremadura

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad de Extremadura (UEx) presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.181 that indicates a solid operational foundation punctuated by specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in its quality control mechanisms, evidenced by a very low rate of retracted publications and a resilient posture against hyper-authorship, a practice more prevalent at the national level. However, vulnerabilities emerge in areas related to academic endogamy, specifically a medium-risk level of institutional self-citation and a higher-than-average rate of publication in its own journals. These indicators suggest a need to strengthen external validation and global engagement. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, UEx's academic excellence is particularly prominent in several key areas, with outstanding national rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences (Top 5), Veterinary (Top 20), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 25), and Social Sciences (Top 30). While these achievements are commendable, the identified risks of insularity could challenge the university's mission to achieve "excellence" and "national and international projection." An over-reliance on internal validation may conflict with the stated values of "transparency" and "social responsibility" by limiting the impact of its research to a closed circuit. By proactively addressing these endogamous tendencies and fostering a culture of broader external collaboration and review, UEx can more robustly align its operational practices with its ambitious mission, ensuring its intellectual leadership is both internally sound and globally recognized.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.439 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.476, indicating a risk profile that is entirely consistent with its context. This alignment suggests that the university's patterns of co-authorship and institutional collaboration reflect standard academic mobility and partnership dynamics within Spain. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the data for UEx shows no such anomalous signals, demonstrating a level of activity that is normal and expected for its size and environment.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low incidence of retracted publications, positioning it favorably against the national Z-score of -0.174. This very low-risk signal is a strong indicator of robust institutional governance and effective pre-publication quality control. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture. In contrast, UEx's performance in this area points to a healthy research environment where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before publication, safeguarding its scientific record and reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.952 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.045. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broad recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that warrants strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.220, while within the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.276, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that, although the overall problem is not widespread, the university's researchers are marginally more likely than their national counterparts to publish in journals that cease operations. A high proportion of such publications can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This minor signal warrants a review to ensure that researchers are equipped with the necessary information literacy to avoid channeling work through media that may not meet long-term quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates significant resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.840 in a national context where this indicator presents a medium risk (Z-score of 0.497). This performance suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. UEx's ability to maintain a low rate in this area indicates strong governance over authorship practices, successfully filtering out pressures that may affect other institutions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of 0.116, the institution shows a more controlled profile than the national average of 0.185, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where UEx moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. While this dependency exists at UEx, its ability to keep the gap narrower than the national trend suggests a comparatively stronger foundation for developing its own intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.222, though in the low-risk category, is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.391. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. While the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests a need for a preemptive review of authorship and productivity policies to ensure that institutional incentives do not inadvertently encourage practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.349 that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.278, even though both fall within the medium-risk range. This indicates that UEx is more prone than its peers to publishing in its own journals. This practice raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party, and can lead to academic endogamy where production bypasses independent external peer review. This heightened tendency may limit the global visibility of its research and suggests a risk of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.001, the institution's rate of redundant output is higher than the national average of -0.228, signaling an incipient vulnerability despite both scores being in the low-risk band. This indicator tracks massive bibliographic overlap, which often points to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. Although the overall risk is low, the fact that UEx shows more signals of this behavior than the national baseline suggests that publication strategies should be monitored to ensure that the focus remains on generating significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.