Universita degli Studi della Basilicata

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universita degli Studi della Basilicata presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance, contrasted with specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of 0.011, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, multiple affiliations, and publication in its own journals, signaling robust internal controls and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive baseline is challenged by a critical risk in hyper-authored output, which is significantly above an already high national average, alongside concerning exposure to institutional self-citation, redundant publication, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. These risks directly challenge the institutional mission to uphold "excellence in research, scholarship, and education," as practices that inflate metrics can undermine the "meaning of the written word" and the integrity of scholarship. The university's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its top national rankings in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a powerful platform for leadership. To fully align its practices with its mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its governance strengths to address these integrity risks, focusing on reinforcing authorship policies and fostering a culture that rewards substantive intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.071, significantly lower than the national average of -0.497. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation strategies, aligning perfectly with a national context that already shows low risk. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate confirms that its affiliations are transparent and not used as a strategic tool to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a strong adherence to standard and ethical collaborative practices.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.484, well below the national average of -0.244, the institution shows a very low incidence of retracted publications. This excellent result suggests that its pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective and reliable. The absence of a discernible pattern of retractions confirms that there is no evidence of systemic failure, recurring malpractice, or lack of methodological rigor, positioning the institution as a benchmark of scientific responsibility within the national system.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.466 places it in the medium-risk category and is notably higher than the national average of 0.340. This indicates a greater propensity for citing its own work compared to its national peers. While a degree of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers.' This high exposure suggests a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be magnified by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, warranting a review of citation patterns.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a low risk with a Z-score of -0.230, which is statistically normal for its context. However, this value is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.290, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall rate is low, this subtle deviation suggests that the institution's researchers may be slightly more exposed than their peers to journals that fail to meet international quality standards. This serves as a signal to review and potentially reinforce guidance on selecting reputable dissemination channels to prevent the waste of resources on low-quality or 'predatory' publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 3.531, the institution exhibits an exceptionally high risk, marking it as a global outlier and far exceeding the already significant national average of 1.457. This result constitutes a global red flag in a country already compromised in this area. Such a high score strongly indicates a systemic issue with author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is imperative for the institution to urgently audit its authorship practices to distinguish between legitimate 'Big Science' collaborations and potential widespread 'honorary' or political authorship, which severely compromises the integrity of its scientific record.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of 1.089, a medium-risk value that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.283. This highlights a significant gap where the impact of the institution's overall output is much greater than the impact of the research it leads. This high exposure points to a strategic sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being driven by its own structural capacity. This finding calls for a deep reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal intellectual leadership or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not hold a primary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.663 is almost identical to the national average of 0.625, with both falling into the medium-risk range. This close alignment indicates that the prevalence of hyperprolific authors is not an institutional anomaly but rather reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the national research environment. This shared risk level points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, driven by common evaluation pressures. It signals a collective vulnerability to practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, which prioritize metric performance over the integrity of scientific contributions.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the very low national average of -0.177, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area. This exceptional result indicates an absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. By choosing to publish its research in external, independent channels, the institution effectively avoids conflicts of interest and ensures its work is validated through standard competitive peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms a commitment to objective, external scrutiny, setting a high standard for integrity.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.307 indicates a medium level of risk that is discernibly higher than the national average of 0.224. This suggests that the institution is more exposed than its peers to practices associated with data fragmentation. This elevated value serves as an alert for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate publication counts. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the communication of significant, integral knowledge.