Universita degli Studi di Roma Foro Italico

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universita degli Studi di Roma Foro Italico presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.439 that indicates performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in multiple key areas, with very low risk signals in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authorship, Redundant Output, and publications in its own journals. These strengths form a solid foundation of responsible research practices. Areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in Multiple Affiliations and a level of Institutional Self-Citation and Hyper-Authored Output that, while managed better than the national context in some cases, still warrants monitoring. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths are concentrated in areas such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Psychology. While the institution's specific mission statement was not localized for this report, this strong integrity profile fundamentally supports the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and contributing responsibly to society. By addressing the moderate-risk indicators, the university can further align its operational practices with its demonstrated thematic leadership, ensuring its reputation for excellence is built on a verifiable foundation of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.029 shows a moderate level of activity, which represents a notable deviation from the national Z-score of -0.497. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate compared to the national context warrants a review. It is important to ensure that this pattern reflects genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.691, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a positive signal that aligns with and even surpasses the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.244). This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. An absence of significant retractions is a hallmark of responsible supervision and a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that methodological rigor is successfully preventing the types of unintentional errors or recurring malpractice that can lead to post-publication corrections.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.291 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.340, indicating that its self-citation practices reflect a systemic pattern common within the country. This suggests the university's behavior is shaped by shared academic practices or regulations at a national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this moderate and systemic level serves as a reminder of the potential risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of impact that is not reflective of broader recognition by the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits an exemplary record with a Z-score of -0.407, indicating a near-absence of publications in discontinued journals. This performance is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.290) and points to strong due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects itself from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a commitment to information literacy, ensuring research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.963, the institution shows a moderate signal for hyper-authorship, yet it demonstrates relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen across the country (Z-score 1.457). This indicates that although the practice exists within the institution, it operates with more order and control than the national average. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The university's ability to moderate this trend suggests a partial filtering of practices like 'honorary' authorship, though continued vigilance is needed to ensure transparency and proper credit attribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.215 reflects a low and healthy gap, showcasing strong institutional resilience against the systemic risks observed at the national level (Z-score 0.283). This negative score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is robust and not overly dependent on external partners for its prestige. Unlike the national trend, this demonstrates that the university's scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the sustainability risks associated with having an impact profile that is primarily exogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, signaling a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score 0.625). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the national tendency toward hyperprolific authorship. By fostering an environment where extreme individual publication volumes are absent, the institution effectively promotes a balance between quantity and quality. This prevents risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a total operational silence regarding this indicator, performing even better than the already strong national standard (Z-score -0.177). This near-total absence of publications in its own journals is an exemplary practice. It signals a firm commitment to independent, external peer review, which avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This approach enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.739, indicating a virtually nonexistent rate of redundant output. This represents a clear preventive isolation from the moderate risk dynamics present in the national environment (Z-score 0.224). This strong performance suggests the institution does not engage in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the publication of significant, new knowledge over sheer volume, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer review system.