Universitat Pompeu Fabra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitat Pompeu Fabra demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.173 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals, which collectively point to a strong culture of quality control and external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant risk in hyper-authored output and moderate alerts concerning the impact gap, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. These vulnerabilities, particularly the potential for authorship inflation and dependency on external partners for impact, could challenge the core mission of becoming a "preeminent research university" and achieving "international leadership" based on genuine internal capacity. The university's outstanding thematic performance, with top-tier national rankings in areas such as Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, underscores its potential. To fully align its practices with its ambitious mission, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research integrity to proactively address the identified areas of risk, ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable transparency and sustainable scientific leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.264 is within a low-risk range but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.476. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the university shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation compared to national peers indicates a need for proactive monitoring to ensure these practices continue to reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution displays an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.174. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but such a minimal rate strongly suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and methodological rigor prior to publication are not just effective but exemplary, fostering a culture of integrity that prevents systemic errors and potential malpractice from occurring.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a Z-score of -0.816, indicating a very low level of institutional self-citation that is well below the national average of -0.045. This result points to a healthy and externally-focused research ecosystem. The institution's performance is consistent with a low-risk national environment, showcasing its strong integration into the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low value confirms that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.450 is firmly in the very low-risk category, outperforming the national average of -0.276. This excellent result shows a consistent alignment with high-quality publication channels and reflects strong due diligence. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, but the university's minimal rate indicates that its researchers are successfully navigating the publishing landscape, avoiding predatory or low-quality media and ensuring that scientific resources are channeled toward impactful and ethically sound venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

A Z-score of 1.945 places the institution in a significant risk category, a value that sharply accentuates the moderate vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.497). This suggests the university is amplifying a national trend toward large author lists. While extensive authorship is legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, such a high score demands an urgent review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. This practice can dilute individual accountability and transparency, and it is critical to verify that these patterns do not reflect 'honorary' or political authorship, which would compromise the integrity of the institution's research record.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.751, indicating a medium-risk gap that is considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.185. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaboration for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is lower, signals a sustainability risk. It prompts a critical reflection on whether the university's measured excellence stems from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not hold a primary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.035, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.391. This indicates an unusual risk level for the national context and requires a review of its causes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, signaling risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.053 reflects a moderate risk level, but it demonstrates differentiated management by remaining significantly below the national average of 0.278. This indicates that the institution moderates a risk that appears more common in the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's controlled rate suggests it is successfully mitigating the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent peer review, thereby ensuring its research seeks validation through more competitive and globally visible channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.446, which is lower than the national average of -0.228. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can signal 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its researchers are effectively avoiding this practice, instead prioritizing the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over artificially boosting publication volume.