| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.931 | -0.497 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.550 | -0.244 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.165 | 0.340 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.201 | -0.290 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.827 | 1.457 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.262 | 0.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.362 | 0.625 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.177 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.061 | 0.224 |
With an overall integrity score of -0.255, Universita Politecnica delle Marche demonstrates a robust and commendable research governance profile, characterized by a significant capacity to mitigate systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in areas with very low risk signals, including the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a solid foundation of transparency and quality control. Furthermore, the university effectively contains national trends toward hyper-authorship and redundant publication, and it successfully builds scientific impact based on its own intellectual leadership. This strong integrity framework underpins the institution's recognized leadership in key research areas, as evidenced by its national Top 20 rankings in fields such as Veterinary, Chemistry, Engineering, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This robust performance in scientific integrity directly supports a mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility, ensuring that its influential research is built on a foundation of transparency and reliability. The overall recommendation is to leverage these strengths by formalizing the effective governance practices already in place and implementing targeted awareness campaigns for the few areas showing incipient vulnerability, thereby ensuring a sustainable culture of scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.931, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.497. This result indicates a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic collaboration, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests a clear and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations, effectively avoiding any ambiguity or strategic practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.550 compared to the country's -0.244, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in publication reliability. This near-total absence of retractions, in a national context with a slightly more active signal, points toward highly effective pre-publication quality control and robust supervisory mechanisms. It suggests that the institution's integrity culture is successful in preventing the types of methodological or ethical failures that can lead to retractions, reinforcing the trustworthiness of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.165, notably lower than the national average of 0.340. This reflects a pattern of differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is normal, the institution's more controlled rate indicates it is less prone to forming scientific 'echo chambers' or engaging in endogamous impact inflation. This suggests a healthy balance between building on internal research lines and seeking validation from the broader international scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.201, which, while indicating low risk, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.290. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A presence in discontinued journals, even if minor, can expose the institution to reputational risks by association with predatory or low-quality publishing practices. This signal suggests a need to reinforce researcher training and due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to ensure that scientific work is not misdirected to outlets that lack international ethical and quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.827 exists within a national context showing a critical score of 1.457. This demonstrates a remarkable degree of relative containment, where the university operates with significantly more order than the national average. In a country where hyper-authorship is a significant risk, the institution's more moderate signal suggests it has effective policies for distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary authorship. This control helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in its research projects.
With a Z-score of -0.262, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.283, the institution displays strong institutional resilience. This score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and intellectual leadership. Unlike the national trend, where impact may often depend on external partners, this institution demonstrates that its excellence is structural and sustainable, stemming from research where its own scholars are at the helm, thus ensuring its reputation is a direct result of its own capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of 0.362 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.625, indicating differentiated management of a nationally prevalent risk. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, the institution's more moderate rate suggests a healthier balance between quantity and quality. This controlled environment helps mitigate the risks of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or other dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record, reflecting a more sustainable and responsible approach to academic productivity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's already low-risk score of -0.177, signifies a state of total operational silence in this area. This exceptional result demonstrates a firm commitment to external, independent peer review and global scientific dialogue. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated against the highest international standards and maximizing its global visibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.061, positioning it as a low-risk entity within a national context that shows a medium-risk score of 0.224. This contrast highlights the institution's resilience against questionable publication strategies. The low signal suggests that internal policies and academic culture effectively discourage practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate publication counts. This focus on substance over volume ensures that the institution contributes significant, coherent knowledge to the scientific record.
