Universidade da Coruna

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidade da Coruña demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.302 that positions it favorably against the national backdrop. This performance reflects a solid institutional culture, particularly evident in its very low incidence of hyperprolific authorship and its effective mitigation of risks prevalent in the national context, such as hyper-authorship and impact dependency. These strengths are foundational to the university's academic excellence, which is highlighted by its strong national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas, including Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (11th in Spain), Computer Science (28th), and Chemistry (32nd). However, to fully align with its mission of providing a "quality public service" and fostering a "critical, committed" citizenship, attention is required for a moderate deviation in institutional self-citation and a tendency toward publishing in its own journals. These practices, if left unmonitored, could create an impression of academic endogamy, potentially undermining the external validation that is crucial for fulfilling its commitment to the "common good." By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can further strengthen its governance, ensuring its significant contributions to science and society are built upon a foundation of unquestionable transparency and global engagement.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.751, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.476. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing institutional affiliations. The university's performance suggests that its control mechanisms are more stringent than the national standard, effectively managing how researchers declare their affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low score demonstrates a clear process that avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring that academic contributions are credited with precision and transparency.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution shows a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.174. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a consistently low rate, as seen here, is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication review processes. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing the occurrence of errors or malpractice that could later lead to retractions and safeguarding the institution's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.101, placing it in the medium-risk category and showing a moderate deviation from the national average, which stands at a low-risk -0.045. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warrants a review to mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensure the institution's academic influence is primarily driven by recognition from the global scientific community, not just internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.050, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.276. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's score, though not alarming, suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among its researchers to ensure they consistently choose reputable journals that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby avoiding reputational risks and the misallocation of research efforts.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.309, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.497, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal governance and authorship policies act as an effective filter against systemic risks observed at the country level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the university's controlled rate indicates a successful effort to prevent author list inflation in other fields. This reinforces individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.315, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.185. This result signals strong institutional resilience and a high degree of scientific autonomy. While it is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, a low gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership. This demonstrates that its high-impact research is not dependent on external collaborators but is a direct result of its internal capacity, ensuring the long-term sustainability of its scientific excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score in this area is -0.929, a very low-risk value that is significantly below the national low-risk average of -0.391. This near-total absence of risk signals demonstrates a low-profile consistency that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard for research integrity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's excellent result indicates a research environment that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over sheer volume, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.066, the institution is in the medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.278. However, the university's score is considerably lower than the country's, indicating a differentiated management approach that successfully moderates a risk that is common nationwide. While in-house journals can be useful for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's more controlled rate suggests a healthier balance, reducing the risk of academic endogamy and ensuring that a greater proportion of its research undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.148 is in the low-risk range but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.228. This difference signals an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. While the university's risk level is not high, this subtle trend suggests that a review of publication guidelines could be beneficial to ensure that research output consistently prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.