| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.882 | -0.497 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.244 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.018 | 0.340 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.365 | -0.290 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.485 | 1.457 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.635 | 0.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.183 | 0.625 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.177 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.222 | 0.224 |
Universita degli Studi Roma Tre demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.124 indicating performance slightly better than the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of output in discontinued journals, multiple affiliations, and publications in its own journals, alongside effective mitigation of hyperprolific authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a significant rate of hyper-authored output, which aligns with a national trend, and medium-level indicators for institutional self-citation and the gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly notable in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; and Arts and Humanities. These achievements align with its mission to promote "high-quality international research" and "excellence." Nevertheless, the identified risks, such as potential impact dependency and authorship inflation, could challenge the principles of "merit" and transparent "dissemination of knowledge." Addressing these vulnerabilities proactively will be key to ensuring that the institution's perceived excellence is structurally sound and fully aligned with its foundational values.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.882, while the national average is -0.497. This result demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals, positioning the university's practices as even more conservative than the already low-risk national standard. This low-profile consistency suggests that the institution's policies effectively promote transparent and legitimate collaboration, avoiding any strategic use of affiliations to artificially inflate institutional credit. The data confirms a healthy pattern of researcher mobility and partnerships, fully aligned with standard academic practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.287, closely mirroring the national average of -0.244. This alignment indicates a level of statistical normality, suggesting that the institution's rate of retractions is as expected for its context and size. The data does not point to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. Instead, it reflects a standard operational dynamic where post-publication corrections occur at a rate consistent with national peers, indicating that supervision and integrity mechanisms are functioning within expected parameters.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.018, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.340. This divergence suggests the institution has a greater exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warrants a review, as it could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal citation practices rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.365, compared to a national average of -0.290. This exceptionally low score indicates that the institution is effectively insulated from the risks associated with publishing in low-quality or predatory venues, performing even better than the national context. This preventive isolation highlights a strong due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels, protecting the university from reputational damage and ensuring that its research output is channeled through credible and ethically sound platforms.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.485, which is almost identical to the national average of 1.457. This result indicates that the university is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic that is prevalent across the country. A high rate of hyper-authorship requires urgent qualitative analysis to distinguish between legitimate, large-scale 'Big Science' collaborations and potential author list inflation. Such a pattern can dilute individual accountability and transparency, creating a risk that 'honorary' or political authorship practices may be overshadowing genuine intellectual contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.635, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.283. This indicates a higher-than-average exposure to dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. The wide positive gap suggests that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be exogenous and not fully reflective of its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are a result of its own core capabilities or its positioning within collaborations where it does not lead the research agenda, posing a potential long-term sustainability risk.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.183, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.625. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk that is more pronounced at the national level. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme publication volumes. This suggests a healthy research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.177. This signals a state of total operational silence in this risk area, confirming an institutional policy that strongly favors external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. This commitment to global validation standards eliminates any risk of academic endogamy or conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific production competes on the global stage and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that bypass rigorous external scrutiny.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.222, which is virtually identical to the national average of 0.224. This alignment suggests the institution's performance reflects a systemic pattern of publication practices shared at a national level. This level of bibliographic overlap between publications serves as an alert for potential 'salami slicing,' where a single body of research may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice warrants monitoring, as it can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritize volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
