Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya (UVic-UCC) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable overall risk score of -0.200. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals. These results indicate strong internal quality controls and a culture of external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national average in the rate of multiple affiliations and a high exposure to hyper-authored output, which warrant closer examination. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these operational indicators support a strong academic performance, with notable national rankings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (9th), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (24th), and Medicine (28th). This performance aligns well with the institutional mission to be an "engine of knowledge and innovation." Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly those related to authorship practices, could challenge the mission's values of "professional rigor" and "social commitment." To ensure long-term success, it is recommended that UVic-UCC leverage its solid integrity foundation to proactively manage these specific vulnerabilities, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its contributions to society are built on a bedrock of transparency and excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.437, which indicates a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.476. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The observed value warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure that collaborative practices are transparent and accurately reflect the institution's substantive contributions, thereby maintaining the integrity of its academic footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.475, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, a figure that is even more favorable than the low-risk national average of -0.174. This low-profile consistency underscores the effectiveness of the university's quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the norm, as seen here, is a strong positive indicator. It suggests that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a concern, reflecting a robust institutional integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that prevents potential malpractice before it enters the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -1.154, a value that signals a complete absence of risk and is significantly lower than the national average of -0.045. This result demonstrates a healthy pattern of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' It provides strong evidence that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the international community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.322 for publications in discontinued journals is statistically normal for its context, closely aligning with the national average of -0.276. This indicates that the risk level is as expected and does not represent a significant vulnerability. However, it serves as a reminder of the importance of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A continued focus on information literacy for researchers is crucial to avoid channeling scientific production into media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing potential reputational risks and the misallocation of resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 1.145, the institution shows high exposure to hyper-authorship, a rate notably higher than the national average of 0.497, which itself is at a medium-risk level. This suggests the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, a high Z-score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a deeper analysis to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potential 'honorary' authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.077, indicating a very low and well-managed gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as it effectively mitigates a systemic risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.185). A narrow gap is a key indicator of sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is structural and driven by its own internal capacity. This reflects a healthy model where excellence is generated endogenously rather than being dependent on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.970 is exceptionally low, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors and performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive sign. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The absence of this phenomenon at the institution suggests a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, discouraging practices like coercive or unmerited authorship.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a risk dynamic that is more present at the national level (Z-score of 0.278). This preventive isolation is commendable. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as it may allow production to bypass independent external peer review. By favoring external channels, the university ensures its research is validated against global standards, which enhances its international visibility and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.180, a low-risk value that is, however, slightly higher than the national average of -0.228. This score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While citing previous work is essential, significant bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. Although not currently a major issue, this signal suggests that a review of publication ethics guidelines may be prudent to prevent this practice from escalating and ensure that research contributions remain significant and non-repetitive.