Universitat Jaume I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitat Jaume I demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile (Overall Score: -0.352), characterized by significant strengths in research autonomy and quality control, alongside specific areas that warrant strategic attention. The institution's performance is particularly outstanding in its near-zero rate of retracted output, its minimal incidence of hyperprolific authorship, and, most notably, its negligible gap between total research impact and the impact of work under its own leadership, confirming that its scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity. These strengths are reflected in its strong national positioning in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Energy, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. However, medium-risk signals in Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, and Output in Institutional Journals suggest a tendency towards academic insularity. These practices could potentially challenge the institutional mission of fostering "critical transmission of knowledge" and achieving a proactive "international presence," as they may limit external validation. By proactively reviewing its policies on affiliation and citation to mitigate the risks of endogamy, the Universitat Jaume I can further solidify its excellent integrity foundation, ensuring its commitment to innovation and societal development is supported by research of the highest transparency and global recognition.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.023, which contrasts with the national average of -0.476. This moderate deviation indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this divergence from the national norm suggests a need to review affiliation practices. It is important to ensure they consistently reflect genuine, substantial collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.418, significantly below the national average of -0.174, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses even the low national standard, points to highly effective pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms. This result is not merely an absence of negative events but a positive indicator of a robust integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible research practices are successfully embedded, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.195 is notably higher than the national average of -0.045, signaling a moderate deviation from the norm. This elevated rate suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate could indicate 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, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution’s Z-score of -0.311 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.276, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. This alignment suggests that, while sporadic publications in such journals may occur, there is no systemic pattern of channeling research into outlets that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This reflects a standard level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, which is crucial for avoiding the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.444, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.497, which shows a medium-risk trend. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation prevalent in the country. This low rate suggests a healthy culture of authorship that successfully distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration in 'Big Science' contexts and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

The institution’s Z-score of -0.986 is exceptionally low, representing a complete preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.185). This outstanding result indicates that the institution’s scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners for impact. It strongly suggests that its high-quality metrics are a direct result of its real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem, which is a key marker of a mature and self-sufficient scientific institution.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits an extremely low Z-score of -1.184, far below the already low national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency and absence of risk signals align with the highest standards of scientific integrity. It indicates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the dilution of meaningful intellectual contribution. This focus on substantive work over sheer metrics reinforces the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.318 is very close to the national average of 0.278, indicating a systemic pattern where its practices reflect shared norms at a national level. While in-house journals can serve valuable functions, this moderate rate of use raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This shared practice warns of a national-level risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of -0.366, which is lower than the national average of -0.228, the institution displays a prudent profile in its publication practices. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard, effectively discouraging the fragmentation of data into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the publication of significant, coherent studies over sheer volume, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.