| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.128 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.171 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.391 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.409 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.303 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.517 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.577 | -0.228 |
The Universitat de Girona demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.214 that places it in the very low-risk category. This performance indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices, which strongly aligns with its mission to achieve excellence in research and knowledge transfer. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as the selection of publication venues, management of institutional journals, and prevention of redundant publications. These strengths are particularly noteworthy as they contrast with more pronounced risks at the national level, positioning the University as a model of good governance. This commitment to integrity underpins its thematic strengths, where it ranks prominently within Spain in key areas such as Veterinary (13th), Physics and Astronomy (16th), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (28th), and Environmental Science (29th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the overall picture is positive, the moderate signal in hyper-authorship and incipient vulnerabilities in multiple affiliations and retractions warrant proactive monitoring to ensure they do not compromise the institution's pursuit of excellence and its role as a benchmark in the Pyrenees-Mediterranean Euroregion. By continuing to reinforce its culture of integrity, the Universitat de Girona can leverage its strong ethical foundation to further enhance its scientific impact and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.128, a low value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or strategic partnerships, this slight elevation compared to the national context indicates that the University shows signals of this activity that could escalate. It is advisable to review these patterns to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than early signs of "affiliation shopping" intended to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the University's rate of retractions is low but slightly exceeds the national benchmark of -0.174. This finding points to an incipient vulnerability that merits attention. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors; however, a rate that is even marginally above the national standard suggests that quality control mechanisms may have room for improvement. This signal, while not alarming, warrants a proactive review to reinforce pre-publication methodological rigor and uphold the institution's integrity culture.
The University demonstrates a prudent profile in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.171, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.045. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining a rate well below its peers, the University effectively avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution shows an excellent Z-score of -0.391, indicating a very low-risk level that is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.276). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a strong alignment with national standards of due diligence in selecting publication channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the University protects its reputation and ensures its research resources are invested in credible and impactful dissemination, steering clear of predatory practices.
The University's Z-score for hyper-authored output is 0.409, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless lower than the national average of 0.497. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', a medium-level signal outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation. The University's ability to keep this rate below the national trend points to a greater awareness of the need to ensure transparency and individual accountability in authorship.
The institution exhibits significant resilience with a Z-score of -0.303, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.185. This demonstrates that the University's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The University's negative Z-score is a strong indicator of scientific sustainability, suggesting that its high-impact research is driven by genuine internal capacity and leadership, not just strategic positioning in collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.517, the University displays a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, performing with greater rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.391). Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive or honorary authorship. By maintaining a very low rate of this activity, the institution demonstrates a commitment to balancing quantity with quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low-risk level, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.278). This indicates the institution does not replicate a concerning trend present in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The University's minimal reliance on these channels ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its global visibility and commitment to competitive, unbiased validation.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.577, a very low-risk value that aligns with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.228), demonstrating low-profile consistency. This near-absence of signals related to 'salami slicing' is a strong indicator of healthy publication practices. By avoiding the fragmentation of coherent studies into minimal publishable units, the University promotes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the academic review system.
