| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.858 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.219 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.324 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.305 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.993 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.080 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.535 | -0.228 |
The Universitat de les Illes Balears (UIB) presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.209, indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of redundant publications and output in its own institutional journals, showcasing a commitment to impactful research and external validation. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring include a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation, a notable gap in the impact of its led research versus collaborative work, and a higher-than-national rate of hyperprolific authorship. These observations are contextualized by the UIB's strong academic positioning, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 19th in Spain), Earth and Planetary Sciences (34th), and Physics and Astronomy (39th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's overall low-risk profile aligns with its mission's commitment to "integrity," the identified medium-risk indicators could challenge the full expression of this value. Specifically, a reliance on external leadership for impact and potential academic insularity may detract from its goal of contributing to societal well-being through its own consolidated capacities. To further strengthen its mission, the UIB is encouraged to develop targeted policies that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is fully supported by a culture of transparency and sustainable scientific leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.858 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.476, positioning it with a prudent profile in this area. This indicates that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this controlled rate suggests the institution is effectively mitigating the risks of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” where credit is artificially inflated. The data reflects a clear and transparent policy regarding institutional representation, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.296, which is below the national average of -0.174, the institution demonstrates a prudent and responsible approach to publication quality. This lower-than-average rate of retractions suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. A rate significantly below the norm points to a strong institutional integrity culture, indicating that potential methodological flaws or malpractice are successfully prevented before they enter the scientific record, rather than requiring correction after the fact.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.219 (medium risk) compared to Spain's -0.045 (low risk). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warrants attention as it can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.324 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.276, both within the low-risk category. This alignment indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context. The low incidence of publications in such journals demonstrates that the institution's researchers are exercising proper due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This effectively avoids the severe reputational risks associated with channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, such as 'predatory' journals.
With a Z-score of 0.305, the institution operates at a medium-risk level, similar to the national average of 0.497. However, its lower score indicates a differentiated management approach, successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure transparency. The university's relative control suggests it is better positioned than its national peers to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship that can dilute individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of 0.993 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.185, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this particular vulnerability, suggesting the institution is more prone to this dynamic than its environment. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result invites strategic reflection on whether the university's scientific prestige is derived from its own structural capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, making its excellence metrics potentially dependent and exogenous.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution registering a Z-score of 0.080 (medium risk) while the national context shows a low-risk score of -0.391. This greater sensitivity to the risk factor warrants a review of its causes. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, signaling risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.278. This shows the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.535 (very low risk) that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.228). The complete absence of risk signals is consistent with the national environment. This indicates a strong institutional culture that discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By avoiding data fragmentation, the university ensures its research contributes significant new knowledge to the scientific record, prioritizing substance over volume and upholding the integrity of the review system.
