| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.716 | -0.497 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.244 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.718 | 0.340 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.488 | -0.290 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.255 | 1.457 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.879 | 0.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.625 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.177 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.014 | 0.224 |
Libera Universita Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.349, indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and reliance on institutional journals, effectively insulating itself from national trends where these risks are more pronounced. This strong governance is complemented by high academic positioning, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 18th in Italy), Business, Management and Accounting (21st), and Mathematics (46th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, its overall low-risk profile aligns with universal values of academic excellence and ethical research. However, the medium-risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Rate of Redundant Output warrant strategic attention, as they could potentially undermine this commitment to quality by suggesting a focus on metric optimization over substantive contribution. A proactive approach to monitoring these two areas will ensure that the institution's operational practices fully reflect its demonstrated capacity for scientific leadership and integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.716, which contrasts with the national average of -0.497. This moderate deviation suggests the center has 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 or partnerships, the institution's higher rate warrants a review of its causes. It is crucial to ensure that this trend reflects genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the perceived value of its academic brand.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.244, though both remain at a low-risk level. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors. However, a rate that begins to creep above the national baseline, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be reinforced to prevent any potential systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture from developing.
The institution demonstrates a low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.718), showing notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average (Z-score: 0.340). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic insularity present in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution successfully avoids signals of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This performance suggests its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.488 is in the very low-risk category, performing better than the already low-risk national standard of -0.290. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a commendable level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The complete absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the institution is effectively avoiding reputational damage and the waste of resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific output.
A significant environmental disconnection is evident in this indicator, with the institution showing a very low-risk Z-score of -1.255 against a national average of 1.457, which is in the significant risk category. This suggests the institution maintains strong internal governance independent of the country's situation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's low score indicates it successfully avoids the national trend of potential author list inflation. This fosters a culture of individual accountability and transparency, clearly distinguishing its practices from 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -0.879, indicating a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This performance represents a form of preventive isolation, as it does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.283). A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. The institution's result, however, suggests that its scientific excellence stems from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution operates in a very low-risk zone, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed in the country (Z-score: 0.625). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the national tendency towards hyper-productivity. While high output can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's profile suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is not only in the very low-risk category but is also lower than the national average of -0.177, signaling a total operational silence in this area. This exemplary performance demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution mitigates any potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its research, ensuring its output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.014 places it in the medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.224. However, its score is considerably lower, suggesting a differentiated management approach that moderates a risk common in the country. While the presence of this signal indicates some level of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—dividing studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—the institution appears to exert more control over this practice than its national peers. This suggests an opportunity to further strengthen policies that encourage the publication of complete, significant studies over sheer volume.
