| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.531 | -0.497 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.244 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.131 | 0.340 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.021 | -0.290 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.771 | 1.457 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.468 | 0.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.446 | 0.625 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.177 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.116 | 0.224 |
The Universita degli Studi Gabriele d'Annunzio di Chieti e Pescara presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.129 that indicates performance generally superior to the national context. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in its quality control and dissemination strategies, evidenced by very low risk levels for Retracted Output and Output in Institutional Journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention emerge in practices related to authorship and citation, including Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output, all of which register a medium risk level. Notably, in these areas of vulnerability, the institution consistently performs better than the national average, suggesting effective internal moderation of broader systemic trends. This solid integrity framework supports the university's strong academic positioning, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national ranks in disciplines such as Psychology (15th), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (25th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (26th), and Chemistry (27th). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified medium-risk areas could challenge universal academic values of transparency and merit-based recognition. Proactively addressing these patterns is essential to safeguard any mission centered on research excellence and social responsibility. Overall, the institution has a commendable foundation; a focused effort to refine authorship and citation policies will further enhance its reputation and buttress its demonstrated leadership in key scientific fields.
The institution's Z-score is -0.531, slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.497. This result suggests a prudent profile in managing affiliations, with processes that appear more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator shows the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative network.
The institution's Z-score is -0.390, while the national average stands at -0.244. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the average is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective, preventing systemic failures and reinforcing a culture of integrity and methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score is 0.131, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.340. This points to differentiated management of citation practices, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's lower rate mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous validation. This approach suggests that the institution's academic influence is less dependent on internal dynamics and more open to external scrutiny than its national peers, although the medium risk level still warrants attention.
The institution's Z-score is -0.021, which is higher than the national average of -0.290. This score, while in the low-risk category, signals an incipient vulnerability, as the institution shows slightly more activity in this area than the national standard. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose an institution to reputational risks and suggests a potential gap in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This slight deviation warrants a review to ensure researchers are equipped with the necessary information literacy to avoid channeling work through 'predatory' or low-quality media.
The institution's Z-score is 0.771, significantly lower than the critical national average of 1.457. This indicates a relative containment of a risk that is highly pronounced at the national level, suggesting the institution operates with more order and control. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation. The institution's ability to keep this indicator at a medium level, in contrast to the country's significant risk, demonstrates an effective filter against practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score is -0.468, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.283. This result highlights significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's negative score indicates the opposite: its impact is driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This demonstrates a sustainable and structural capacity for generating high-quality science, avoiding the risk of relying on collaborations for prestige.
The institution's Z-score is 0.446, which is lower than the national average of 0.625. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates the risk of extreme individual publication volumes more effectively than its national peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, hyperprolificacy often challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's ability to keep this indicator below the national average suggests a better balance between quantity and quality, reducing the risk of practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, compared to a national average of -0.177. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already low national average. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The institution's extremely low score indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively on a global stage and enhancing its international visibility.
The institution's Z-score is 0.116, notably lower than the national average of 0.224. This demonstrates differentiated management, as the institution shows more control over a practice that is more common nationally. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's lower score suggests a healthier research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications, thereby avoiding the distortion of scientific evidence.
