Libera Universita Maria Ss. Assunta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Libera Universita Maria Ss. Assunta presents a commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.415 that indicates performance superior to the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its remarkable capacity to insulate itself from adverse national trends, particularly in the areas of hyper-authorship and hyperprolific authors, where it maintains exceptionally low-risk levels in contrast to the country's significant or medium-risk signals. This demonstrates a robust internal culture of accountability and quality. The main areas for strategic attention are a high dependency on external collaborations for impact, and medium-level risks in self-citation and redundant output that mirror systemic national patterns. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic contributions are concentrated in Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, Psychology, and Social Sciences. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified dependency on external leadership for impact could challenge long-term goals of achieving autonomous scientific excellence. By leveraging its strong integrity framework, the institution is well-positioned to develop strategies that foster internal research leadership, ensuring its recognized collaborative strengths translate into sustainable, self-directed scientific prestige.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.887 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is notably lower than the national average of -0.497. This demonstrates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the low-risk standard in Italy. The data suggests that the institution maintains clear and transparent affiliation practices, effectively avoiding signals that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing its commitment to straightforward academic representation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's Rate of Retracted Output is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.244. This alignment indicates that the frequency of retractions is as expected for an institution of its context and size. The low level of this indicator suggests that retractions are likely the result of honest correction of unintentional errors, reflecting responsible supervision, rather than a signal of systemic failures in pre-publication quality control or recurring malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.143 for the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, which is below the national average of 0.340. Although this indicator is at a medium-risk level for both the institution and the country, the university demonstrates differentiated management by moderating a risk that appears more common nationally. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's lower rate suggests it is less prone to the formation of 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, showing a healthier balance between referencing internal research lines and engaging with the global scientific community for external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.474 for the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, a figure that signals a significantly lower risk than the national average of -0.290. This very low-risk profile indicates a strong consistency with national standards of quality, but with even greater diligence. It suggests that the institution's researchers are effectively selecting reputable dissemination channels, thereby avoiding the reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals and ensuring that scientific output is directed toward stable, recognized media.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output is -0.769, a low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk score of 1.457. This marked difference highlights the institution's role as an effective filter, successfully acting as a firewall against a problematic national practice. The low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests a strong institutional culture that discourages author list inflation and 'honorary' authorships, promoting instead clear individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.

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

With a Z-score of 0.748, the Gap between the impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership is significantly higher than the national average of 0.283. This high exposure indicates that the institution is more prone to this risk than its national peers. The wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that a substantial portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors is -1.413, indicating a near-total absence of this risk, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.625. This demonstrates a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data strongly suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, and instead fostering a research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

For the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, the institution's Z-score is -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.177. This signals a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is below the already minimal national baseline. This extremely low reliance on in-house journals is a powerful indicator of the institution's commitment to independent, external peer review, effectively avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy while maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Redundant Output is 0.220, a value that is virtually identical to the national average of 0.224. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the medium-risk level reflects shared academic practices or regulatory pressures at a national level. This suggests that, like its peers, the institution may be influenced by a research environment that incentivizes the fragmentation of studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritize volume over significant new knowledge.