| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.710 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.145 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.903 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.345 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.921 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.298 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.924 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.183 | -0.228 |
The Universitat Internacional de Catalunya demonstrates a balanced institutional profile, with an overall integrity score (-0.079) that aligns closely with the global average, indicating a solid foundation free from extreme systemic risks. Key strengths are evident in areas of excellent internal governance, including a very low rate of institutional self-citation, minimal publication in discontinued journals, and a near-absence of hyperprolific authorship or reliance on institutional journals. These results signal a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. However, areas requiring strategic attention emerge in authorship practices and quality control, with medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, retracted output, and redundant publications. The institution's academic excellence is particularly prominent in specific fields, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting top-tier national positioning in Dentistry (ranked 7th in Spain), as well as strong standings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine. To fully realize its mission of serving society through high-quality research, it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. These risks, if unmanaged, could challenge the credibility and integrity that underpin the university's commitment to scientific and human education. We recommend leveraging the institution's clear strengths in governance to implement enhanced training and oversight protocols focused on authorship ethics and pre-publication quality assurance, thereby ensuring its research impact is both robust and unimpeachable.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.710 in this indicator, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk score of -0.476. This suggests that the university displays a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate significantly above the country's average warrants a closer look. This heightened signal could indicate strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," and a review is recommended to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborative work.
With a Z-score of 0.145, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.174. This moderate deviation from the national norm suggests a particular vulnerability in this area. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that surpasses the country's benchmark serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This value suggests a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, possibly pointing to recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -0.903, significantly below the already low national average of -0.045. This result indicates a consistent and healthy low-risk profile, reflecting an absence of integrity alerts in this domain. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this remarkably low rate confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' Instead, it signals that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community, successfully avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and showcasing a commitment to external validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.345 is notably lower than the national average of -0.276, indicating an exemplary and consistent alignment with best practices in a low-risk national environment. This strong negative score is a critical sign of robust due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It confirms that the university's researchers are effectively avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from severe reputational risks and ensuring that scientific resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
Both the institution (Z-score: 0.921) and the country (Z-score: 0.497) exhibit a pattern of risk in this area, but the university's score indicates a significantly higher exposure. This suggests it is more prone to showing alert signals for hyper-authorship than the national average. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not structurally necessary, such a high value can indicate author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as a prompt to distinguish between legitimate massive collaborations and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices within the institution.
The institution displays notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.298, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.185, a value indicating a systemic risk across the country. This performance suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk prevalent in its environment. A low or negative score here is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy, demonstrating that the institution's prestige is not dependent on external partners. This result confirms that its excellence metrics are driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a key factor for sustainable and structural growth.
With a Z-score of -0.924, the institution shows a near-total absence of this risk, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy research environment aligned with national standards. The data strongly suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This result points to a commendable balance that protects the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 marks a clear case of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.278. The institution does not replicate the risk patterns of its environment, instead showing a firm commitment to external publication channels. This is a significant strength, as it mitigates potential conflicts of interest and avoids academic endogamy. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, the university enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.183 indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average score is -0.228. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers in the country. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, making it an important area for internal review and policy reinforcement.
