| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.626 | -0.497 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.244 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.137 | 0.340 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.434 | -0.290 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.444 | 1.457 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.038 | 0.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.123 | 0.625 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.177 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.463 | 0.224 |
Universita degli Studi Ca Foscari di Venezia demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.295. This performance indicates a governance framework that is not only sound but also excels at mitigating systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices, self-citation, and the selection of publication venues, effectively creating a firewall against national vulnerabilities in hyper-authorship and redundant publication. The only area requiring strategic attention is a moderate rate of multiple affiliations, which deviates from the national standard. This outstanding integrity profile strongly supports the university's mission to deliver "the highest quality research" and act as an "accountable and stable institution." Its leadership, evidenced by top-tier SCImago Institutions Rankings in areas such as Arts and Humanities, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, is built on a foundation of ethical and transparent research practices. To further solidify this position, it is recommended that the institution continues to foster its culture of integrity while examining the drivers behind its multiple affiliation patterns to ensure they fully align with its strategic and collaborative goals.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.626, while the national average is -0.497. This result signals a moderate deviation from the national context, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here warrants a closer look. It suggests a potential over-reliance on strategies that could be perceived as attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that, if unmonitored, could dilute the institution's distinct academic identity and accountability.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.259, closely mirroring the national average of -0.244, the university's performance in this area reflects statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this alignment suggests that the institution's rate of correcting the scientific record, whether due to honest error or other factors, is consistent with national standards. The current data does not point to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control or a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.137 in a national context where the average is a moderate-risk 0.340. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the trend towards creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This low rate confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, preventing the endogamous impact inflation that can arise from insufficient external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.434 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.290, showcasing an exemplary commitment to quality publishing. This absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, demonstrating a consistent and low-profile approach to publication integrity. This performance indicates that the university exercises strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively protecting its research and reputation from the risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards.
The university acts as an effective filter against national trends, with a Z-score of -0.444 in a country exhibiting a significant-risk score of 1.457. This stark contrast highlights the institution's role as a firewall against widespread national practices of author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the university’s low score suggests a culture that values transparency and individual accountability in authorship. This robustly counters the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned based on meaningful contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.038 compared to the national average of 0.283, the institution again displays strong resilience against a systemic national risk. It is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, but a wide positive gap can signal a dependency risk. The university's balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity. This reflects a healthy dynamic where the institution exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, rather than achieving excellence metrics primarily through a strategic position in partnerships led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.123 stands in sharp contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.625, demonstrating a case of preventive isolation. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding extreme individual publication volumes. This very low score indicates a culture that successfully balances productivity with quality, steering clear of practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. It effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which can arise when quantity is pursued at the expense of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university's performance shows total operational silence on this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.177. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to a healthy national baseline, is exemplary. It demonstrates a profound commitment to independent external peer review, thereby avoiding any potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that the university's research competes on a global stage and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks,' reinforcing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -0.463, while the national system shows a medium-risk average of 0.224. This divergence indicates that the university does not partake in the national tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The very low score is a strong signal that the institution's research culture prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. This approach upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system by focusing on substantive new knowledge.
