Universita degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universita degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.292 that indicates a performance superior to the national average. Key strengths are evident in its very low rates of retracted output, multiple affiliations, and output in institutional journals, alongside a remarkable capacity for generating impact through its own intellectual leadership. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a significant rate of hyper-authored output—a challenge shared with the national system—and medium-level risks in institutional self-citation and redundant publications, which are nonetheless managed more effectively than the national average. This solid integrity framework underpins the University's notable academic strengths, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences, where it holds top-tier national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This performance largely aligns with its mission to "contribute to the social, cultural and economic development of society." The identified risks, particularly those related to authorship and citation patterns, could, if left unaddressed, subtly undermine the transparency and external validation necessary for knowledge to be truly impactful and socially responsible. Overall, the institution is well-positioned to leverage its integrity strengths to further enhance its research excellence and societal contributions. A proactive focus on refining authorship policies and fostering broader external engagement will solidify its role as a leader in responsible research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.965, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.497. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the low-risk standard observed across Italy. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's collaboration and affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that it is not engaging in strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining a clear and honest representation of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.409 compared to the national average of -0.244, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, aligning with the low-risk context of the country. This favorable comparison suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, the institution's minimal rate indicates a strong preventative culture. This performance points to a systemic commitment to methodological rigor and integrity, effectively minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to retractions and safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.283, while the national average is slightly higher at 0.340. Both values fall within the medium-risk category, but the university demonstrates more effective management of this risk compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution appears to be successfully moderating the tendency toward creating scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This differentiated management helps mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is more reliant on global community recognition than on internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.101, which, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.290. This slight divergence highlights an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is not alarming, the upward deviation from the national norm suggests a potential weakness in information literacy that could, if unaddressed, expose a portion of its scientific output to reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 1.414, the institution reflects a significant risk level that is nearly identical to the national average of 1.457. This alignment indicates that the university is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic prevalent throughout the country's research system. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not structurally necessary, such a high rate can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This shared pattern suggests a systemic issue, pointing to a need for institutional and national dialogue on distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.372, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.283. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a national trend where institutional prestige often depends on external partners. A negative or very low score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is high, signaling true scientific autonomy. This result confirms that the university's excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead, ensuring its scientific prestige is both structural and sustainable.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.450 places it in the low-risk category, a significantly better position than the national average of 0.625, which falls into the medium-risk range. This difference highlights the institution's resilience and the effectiveness of its internal control mechanisms in mitigating systemic national risks. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests it successfully fosters a research environment that avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, thereby preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk, performing even better than the already very low national average of -0.177. This operational silence in a non-risk environment is a strong indicator of a commitment to global research standards. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The institution's minimal use of such channels demonstrates a clear preference for independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively by the global community and maximizing its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.066 is in the medium-risk category but is notably lower than the national average of 0.224. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the university is more effectively moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution shows a stronger commitment to publishing significant new knowledge over volume, better preserving the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reducing the burden on the peer-review system.