| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.839 | -0.476 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.090 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.690 | -0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.074 | -0.276 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.387 | 0.497 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.305 | 0.185 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.739 | -0.391 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.278 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.031 | -0.228 |
Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score of 0.101 and commendable performance across most indicators. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of publication in its own journals and prudent management of hyperprolific authorship and institutional self-citation. These practices reflect a culture that prioritizes external validation and quality over volume. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by two key areas of concern: a significant risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which deviates sharply from the national norm, and a medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. Thematically, the university showcases notable strengths and international positioning, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 4th in Spain), Veterinary (25th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (38th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This academic excellence aligns with the institutional mission to foster "people of distinction in knowledge and in action." Nevertheless, the identified risks, especially regarding affiliation strategies, could undermine the commitment to carrying out functions in a "responsible manner." Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that institutional prestige is built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity and sustainable internal capacity. By proactively managing these specific risks, the university can further solidify its reputation and fully honor its mission of providing a "constructive presence" in the scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.839, a value that places it in a high-risk category and marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.476. This atypical level of activity requires a deep integrity assessment, as it suggests a pattern of behavior not seen elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, such a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This finding warrants an urgent internal review to understand the drivers behind this practice and ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and aligned with ethical standards of contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.090, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.174. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that begins to creep above the national baseline, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms should be reviewed. This proactive step can help prevent any potential systemic failures from escalating and ensure the continued integrity of the institution's research output.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.690, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.045. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate shows a strong commitment to avoiding scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This practice ensures that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into external scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of -0.074, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.276, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests a slightly greater tendency for its researchers to publish in channels that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals can expose the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding points to a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence among researchers in selecting dissemination channels to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.387, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the national average of 0.497, which falls into the medium-risk category. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's low score indicates it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 0.305 is in the medium-risk range and indicates a higher exposure to this issue than the national average of 0.185. This pattern suggests that the risk level reflects shared practices at a national level, but the university is more prone to showing these alert signals. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result invites reflection on whether the university's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural capacity.
The institution presents a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.739, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.391. This demonstrates that the university manages research productivity with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates it effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.278, which is in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. In-house journals can create conflicts of interest, but the institution's minimal reliance on them signals a strong commitment to independent external peer review. This practice avoids the risk of academic endogamy and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, thereby enhancing the global visibility and credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.031, while low, is notably higher than the national average of -0.228, indicating an incipient vulnerability. This suggests a slightly greater tendency toward the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While citing previous work is necessary, massive bibliographic overlap between publications can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the review system. This signal warrants a review to ensure that the institutional culture continues to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
