| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.364 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.075 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.363 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.106 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.242 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.296 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.413 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.282 | -0.228 |
The Universitat de Valencia presents a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.019 that indicates a balanced performance aligned with national standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in due diligence, particularly with a very low rate of publication in discontinued journals and a prudent management of redundant output, showcasing a commitment to quality. However, areas requiring strategic attention emerge in three key indicators: a high rate of hyper-authored output, a significant gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and a notable rate of publication in its own institutional journals. These vulnerabilities could challenge the institution's mission to "promote research of international prestige and impact," as they suggest that its influence may be partially dependent on external leadership and that internal publication practices could limit global validation. This is juxtaposed with its outstanding academic positioning, as evidenced by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national and international rankings in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Psychology. To fully align its operational integrity with its academic excellence and societal mission, the university is encouraged to review its authorship and collaboration policies to ensure they foster genuine leadership and reinforce the transparency and democratic values it champions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.364, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline could signal an emerging trend. It is advisable to monitor this indicator to ensure that affiliations remain a reflection of genuine collaboration rather than evolving into a strategic tool to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retracted output is low but slightly exceeds the national benchmark of -0.174. This finding points to a potential incipient vulnerability. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when they involve honest error correction. However, a rate that, while minimal, is still above the country's average, may hint at minor, early-stage weaknesses in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Continued monitoring is recommended to ensure this does not escalate into a systemic issue affecting the institution's integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.075, which is statistically comparable to the national average of -0.045. This alignment indicates a state of normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The current value does not suggest the presence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' indicating that the institution's work is validated with sufficient external scrutiny and its academic influence is not being disproportionately inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -0.363, significantly below the national average of -0.276. This very low rate reflects a consistent and robust approach to selecting publication venues, which aligns perfectly with the national standard of integrity. This performance indicates that the institution has strong due diligence processes in place for choosing dissemination channels, effectively mitigating the severe reputational risks associated with channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of 1.106 is notably higher than the national average of 0.497, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. Although hyper-authorship can be legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this elevated rate suggests the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could signal author list inflation. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that extensive author lists reflect necessary massive collaboration rather than 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of 1.242, the institution shows a significantly wider gap than the national average of 0.185, signaling a high exposure to this strategic risk. This value suggests that while the university participates in high-impact research, its scientific prestige is potentially dependent and exogenous, not structural. A wide gap where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low points to a sustainability risk. It invites reflection on whether excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.296 is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.391, which points to an incipient vulnerability. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation above the national baseline suggests a minor but observable presence of authors whose output levels could signal potential imbalances between quantity and quality, warranting a review to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.413 is higher than the national average of 0.278, indicating a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice. While in-house journals can be valuable, this greater-than-average dependence on them raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This elevated rate warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.282, which is lower than the national average of -0.228. This demonstrates that the institution manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. A lower rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications indicates a reduced risk of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This strong performance suggests a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific record.
