Universidad Politecnica de Madrid

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.311 indicating a performance that is healthier than the international average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices and publication channels, evidenced by very low risk levels in the rates of Hyperprolific Authors and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, UPM shows remarkable resilience by maintaining a low-risk profile in areas where the national context presents systemic vulnerabilities, such as the dependency on external collaborations for impact. This strong integrity framework supports its outstanding academic positioning, particularly in its top-ranked Spanish disciplines of Energy, Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathematics, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, to fully align with its mission of instilling "ethical values" and "responsibility," attention is required for medium-risk indicators like Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output. These signals, while not critical, suggest internal dynamics that could challenge the principles of external validation and significant contribution, which are fundamental to creating the "fair and safe society" envisioned in its charter. A proactive review of these specific areas will ensure that UPM's operational practices perfectly mirror its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility, solidifying its leadership both nationally and globally.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.416, a low-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This minimal difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's rate, though low, shows slightly more activity in this area than its national peers. This serves as a signal to ensure that these affiliations consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.174. This indicates that the university manages its post-publication review processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a lower-than-average rate suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place are effective in preventing the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This strong performance reflects a mature and responsible integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.039 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.045. This discrepancy indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community, a matter that requires strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.255 is almost identical to the national average of -0.276, reflecting statistical normality within a low-risk environment. This alignment shows that the university's researchers select publication venues with a level of due diligence that is standard for the country. The risk of channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is minimal. This result indicates that the institution is not exposed to the reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices and that its information literacy policies are effectively aligned with national standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.173, the institution operates at a medium-risk level that is, however, substantially healthier than the national average of 0.497. This signals a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While the national context may be prone to author list inflation, the institution demonstrates better control, suggesting a clearer distinction between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship. This relative control helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.212, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.185. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. A low score in this indicator is a sign of strength, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by a structural and sustainable internal capacity. This result confirms that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine intellectual leadership, not merely from strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.963 is in the very low-risk category, well below the already low national average of -0.391. This result signifies a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a secure national standard. It indicates that the university fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality, avoiding the potential pitfalls of extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This excellent metric reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record by showing that its output is not driven by outliers who might prioritize metrics over meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in the very low-risk category, marking a case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.278. This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its competitive validation and maximizes its global visibility, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 0.322 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.228. This indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A heightened rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can be an alert for 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This trend warrants a review, as such a practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system by prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.