| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.453 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.082 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.356 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.835 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.515 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.369 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.012 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.724 | -0.228 |
The Universidad de La Laguna presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.078, indicating general alignment with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in its publication practices, showing very low risk in the Rate of Redundant Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, suggesting a robust culture of quality over quantity and careful selection of publication venues. However, three key areas require strategic attention: a significant risk in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and medium risks in Institutional Self-Citation and the Gap between its total impact and the impact of its led research. These vulnerabilities, particularly the patterns of authorship and impact dependency, could challenge the core of its mission "to promote the social, cultural and economic development of the Canary Islands from knowledge." An over-reliance on external leadership or inflated authorship metrics can undermine the perceived credibility and autonomy of the knowledge generated. These integrity signals are particularly relevant given the institution's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks prominently in Spain for Earth and Planetary Sciences, Physics and Astronomy, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. By proactively addressing these identified risks, the University can ensure its operational practices fully support its mission, reinforcing that its contribution to regional development is built on a foundation of unquestionable scientific excellence and integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.453 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.476. This alignment indicates that the university's patterns of collaboration and researcher mobility are consistent with the expected standards for its context and size. The rate of multiple affiliations is at a level that does not suggest systemic issues, reflecting what is typically a legitimate result of partnerships and dual appointments rather than strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.174. This lower incidence suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Rather than indicating systemic failures, this favorable score points towards a culture of responsible research conduct where unintentional errors are effectively managed prior to publication, safeguarding the integrity of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 1.082 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.045. This indicates a greater sensitivity to self-citation practices compared to its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that its academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits an exemplary Z-score of -0.356, indicating a very low risk and outperforming the already low-risk national average of -0.276. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a consistent and effective due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. This practice is a strong defense against predatory publishing, protecting the university from severe reputational harm and ensuring that its scientific production is channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thus avoiding the waste of valuable research resources.
A Z-score of 1.835 places the institution at a significant risk level, amplifying a vulnerability that is already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.497). This severe discrepancy suggests that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" collaborations, the institution may be experiencing a pattern of author list inflation. This practice dilutes individual accountability and transparency, creating an urgent need to investigate whether these extensive author lists correspond to necessary massive collaborations or reflect problematic "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.515 indicates high exposure to this risk, substantially exceeding the national average of 0.185, even though both fall within the medium risk category. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This disparity invites critical reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.369 is statistically normal and virtually identical to the national average of -0.391. This indicates that the level of highly productive authors is as expected for its context, suggesting a balanced research environment. The data does not point to systemic issues related to extreme individual publication volumes, which can often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and lead to risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.012, the institution demonstrates notable resilience, effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.278). By showing a low reliance on its own journals, the university successfully avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This approach ensures that its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and validating research through standard competitive processes rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.724 is exceptionally low, positioning it far more favorably than the national average of -0.228. This near-total absence of risk signals indicates a strong commitment to research integrity. It suggests that the university's researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through 'salami slicing.' This practice of avoiding data fragmentation not only respects the scientific record but also contributes positively to the efficiency of the peer review system by focusing on substantive new knowledge.
