| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.569 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.173 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.144 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.244 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.170 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.429 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.251 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.069 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.389 | -0.228 |
The Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.199 that indicates performance superior to the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of hyperprolific authors and shows notable resilience by avoiding national trends toward hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals. However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderately elevated rate of retracted publications and a significant gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, including top-tier rankings in Veterinary (8th in Spain), Earth and Planetary Sciences (17th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (21st), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of providing a "quality and efficient" public service and generating knowledge responsibly, it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as they could undermine the perceived quality of its excellent research output. A focused review of pre-publication quality controls and strategies to foster internal scientific leadership would consolidate its reputation and ensure its contributions to the "economic progress and social welfare of the Canary Islands" are both impactful and sustainable.
With a Z-score of -0.569, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.476, the institution demonstrates a prudent approach to author affiliations. This suggests that its internal processes are more rigorous than the national standard in ensuring affiliations are legitimate reflections of collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled rate indicates a healthy ecosystem where researcher mobility and partnerships are managed transparently, avoiding the risks associated with "affiliation shopping."
The institution's Z-score of 0.173 for retracted output marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.174, signaling a potential area of concern. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than its peers suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This value serves as an alert to a possible vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision may exist, which requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university maintains a Z-score of -0.144, a figure that reflects more rigorous control than the national average of -0.045. This prudent profile indicates that the institution successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation and endogamous impact inflation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the university's lower-than-average rate demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, ensuring its work is validated by external scrutiny rather than within an 'echo chamber' of self-validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.244, while low, is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.276, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that a small but noteworthy portion of its research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This signal, though minor, warrants a review of dissemination practices to prevent reputational risks and ensure that institutional resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing channels.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.170, effectively mitigating a systemic risk observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.497). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are successful in preventing the trend of author list inflation seen elsewhere. By maintaining this low rate, the university promotes a culture of accountability and transparency, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable "honorary" authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.429, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, surpassing the already moderate national average of 0.185. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low—signals a significant risk to sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This finding invites a deep reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research excellence.
The institution exhibits an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.251, indicating a near-total absence of risk signals and aligning perfectly with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.391). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong institutional focus on the substance and quality of research over sheer volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication rates, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The university shows commendable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.069 that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national trend (Z-score of 0.278). This demonstrates a clear commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By not depending on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive mechanisms rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.389, the institution displays a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.228). This lower rate of bibliographic overlap suggests that the university effectively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate publication counts. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant findings protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and demonstrates a focus on generating new knowledge rather than just maximizing output metrics.
