Universitat d'Alacant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universitat d'Alacant demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.201, indicating performance that is generally stronger and more controlled than the national average. Key strengths are evident in its prudent management of authorship practices, showing very low rates of hyperprolific authors and a notable resilience against the national trend of hyper-authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate tendency towards Institutional Self-Citation and a high exposure to publishing in its own institutional journals, which suggest a potential for academic endogamy. These observations are particularly relevant given the institution's strong positioning in several key disciplines, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks within the top 10 nationally in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, and Energy. While these thematic strengths are clear, the identified risks of insularity could, if left unaddressed, subtly undermine the university's mission to be a "socially responsible institution" committed to broad "cultural, scientific and technological development." True excellence and societal contribution depend on external validation and global dialogue, which are potentially limited by inward-looking publication habits. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the Universitat d'Alacant can further solidify its strong integrity framework, ensuring its research not only achieves high standards of quality but also maximizes its intended impact on society.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.722, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.476. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to institutional affiliations, suggesting that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and collaboration, the university's low score signals a healthy operational environment, free from patterns that might suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a clear and transparent policy regarding how institutional credit is assigned and managed.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution shows a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.174. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting 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 and a solid culture of methodological integrity, minimizing the risk of systemic failures that could lead to post-publication corrections.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.164, while the national average is -0.045. This represents a moderate deviation from the national context, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers in Spain. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.131, slightly higher than the national average of -0.276. This score points to an incipient vulnerability, as it shows signals that, while currently low, warrant review before they escalate. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's current standing suggests a need for enhanced awareness and information literacy among its researchers to ensure that scientific output is consistently channeled through reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby avoiding reputational risks and the misallocation of research efforts.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score is -0.096, a figure that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.497. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the institution successfully avoids practices like author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

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

With a Z-score of -0.414, the institution shows a much smaller gap compared to the national average of 0.185. This result signals strong institutional resilience and a high degree of scientific autonomy. A wide positive gap can suggest that an institution's prestige is heavily dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. In contrast, this university's low score indicates that its scientific impact is structural and generated from within, reflecting a robust internal capacity for leading high-quality, impactful research rather than relying on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution has a Z-score of -0.821, significantly below the national average of -0.391. This reflects a prudent and well-regulated research environment, where authorship practices are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area is a strong positive signal, indicating an absence of practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and suggests a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.134 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.278, indicating high exposure to this risk factor. This pattern suggests that the university is more prone to relying on its own publication channels than its peers. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an excessive dependence on them raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high score warns of a significant risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.101 is slightly above the national average of -0.228. This value, though low, signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's score suggests that while this is not a widespread issue, there are faint signals of this practice. It is advisable to reinforce guidelines on publication ethics to ensure that research contributions remain significant and avoid overburdening the scientific review system with fragmented or redundant work.