| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.033 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.165 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.620 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.676 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.549 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.228 |
Escola Superior d'Administracio i Direccio d'Empreses demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.370. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in multiple areas, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and publication in both discontinued and institutional journals. This strong foundation in ethical research practices provides a solid base for its academic leadership, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Arts and Humanities. However, two indicators—Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between its total and led impact—present medium-level risks that are more pronounced than the national average. While the institution's mission of excellence is largely supported by its strong integrity culture, these specific vulnerabilities could challenge long-term goals related to sustainable research leadership and transparent collaboration. It is recommended that the institution leverage its significant governance strengths to proactively address these two areas, thereby reinforcing its commitment to both academic excellence and unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.033, which contrasts with the national average of -0.476. This moderate deviation suggests the center is more sensitive to factors driving multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of collaboration patterns. The data indicates a need to ensure that these affiliations are consistently driven by substantive scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the institution's unique brand and research identity.
With a Z-score of -0.165, the institution's rate of retracted output is in close alignment with the national average of -0.174. This reflects a level of statistical normality, indicating that its post-publication correction mechanisms are functioning as expected for an institution of its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this low and stable rate suggests that when they occur, they are likely the result of responsible supervision and the honest correction of unintentional errors, which is a sign of a healthy scientific culture.
The institution shows an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.620, significantly below the national average of -0.045. This demonstrates a strong outward-looking research orientation and an absence of the risks associated with academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, this very low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader global community, not confined to an internal 'echo chamber.' This performance is a clear indicator of high external impact and integration into international scientific dialogue.
The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is well below the national average of -0.276, signaling a consistent and effective policy for selecting publication venues. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong due diligence process, successfully avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. By steering clear of predatory or low-quality journals, the institution not only protects its resources and reputation but also ensures its scientific output contributes meaningfully to the global body of knowledge.
With a Z-score of -0.676, the institution displays a low rate of hyper-authored publications, a positive sign when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.497. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed more broadly in the country. This practice fosters transparency and clear accountability in authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic practices like honorary authorship, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.549, marking a point of high exposure as it is notably higher than the national average of 0.185, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being generated by its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to foster more intellectual leadership in collaborations to ensure that its high-impact metrics translate into genuine, self-sustaining internal excellence.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, which is significantly better than the national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency with best practices is a strong positive signal. It suggests a research culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, ensuring that productivity metrics are a credible reflection of substantive scientific work.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.278. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the institution deliberately avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This strategy enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its commitment to objective quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.228, indicating a very low rate of redundant publications. This alignment with best practices shows a clear commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The data suggests the institution effectively discourages "salami slicing," the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to inflate productivity. This focus on substance over volume not only strengthens the scientific record but also demonstrates respect for the integrity of the research and peer-review systems.
