Universitat de Lleida

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universitat de Lleida presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.302 that indicates performance significantly stronger than the national average. This result is underpinned by exceptional control in key areas, showing very low risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. The institution also demonstrates remarkable resilience by effectively mitigating risks that are more prevalent at the national level, such as the dependency on external collaborations for impact and the use of institutional journals. The only area requiring moderate attention is the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, though even here, the university shows better management than its national peers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this solid foundation of integrity supports notable thematic strengths, particularly in Veterinary (ranked 22nd in Spain), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (28th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (35th), and Physics and Astronomy (42nd). This strong ethical performance directly aligns with the university's stated mission to serve society with accountability and good governance. By ensuring the reliability and quality of its research, the university gives tangible meaning to its commitment to the "creation, conservation and transmission of knowledge." To build on this success, the Universitat de Lleida is encouraged to leverage its outstanding integrity profile as a strategic asset, reinforcing its reputation for excellence and social responsibility while continuing to monitor the few indicators with even minor risk signals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.933 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.476, indicating an exemplary profile in this area. This result demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, where the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate suggests that its collaborative practices are driven by scientific merit rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of authenticity in its partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.174, although both fall within the low-risk category. This minor divergence points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible supervision in correcting honest errors. However, a rate that edges above the national norm, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less consistently applied than at peer institutions, signaling a need for qualitative verification to ensure methodological rigor and prevent potential systemic issues.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates a prudent and externally-focused research culture, with a Z-score of -0.368 that is considerably lower than the national average of -0.045. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate effectively avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is robustly validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous dynamics, reflecting a genuine and externally recognized impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a prudent profile in its choice of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.317 that is lower than the national average of -0.276. This suggests that the university's researchers manage their dissemination strategies with more rigor than the national standard. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, but the university's controlled rate indicates its community is effectively avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from reputational risks and ensures research efforts are channeled into credible and impactful outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.310, which, while in the medium-risk range, is notably lower than the national average of 0.497. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can signal inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The university's relative containment of this practice suggests a greater emphasis on transparency and meaningful contribution in authorship, distinguishing its practices from the broader national trend.

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

The institution exhibits significant resilience, with a Z-score of -0.235 in a national context where the average is 0.185 (medium risk). This demonstrates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. However, the university's negative score indicates that the impact of research under its own intellectual leadership is strong and self-sustaining, reflecting a structural capacity for excellence rather than a dependency on strategic positioning in collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -0.684, far below the national average of -0.391, the university demonstrates a prudent profile in managing author productivity. This indicates that its processes are governed with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university shows a clear pattern of preventive isolation from a national trend, with a very low Z-score of -0.174 compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.278. This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university enhances its global visibility and avoids using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication, thereby ensuring its research is validated against competitive international standards.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of -0.473 is well below the national average of -0.228, signaling a very low-risk profile. This absence of risk signals is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study to inflate publication counts. The university's excellent performance here suggests a strong institutional focus on producing substantive and coherent contributions to knowledge, prioritizing significant scientific advancement over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.