Universidad Internacional Valenciana

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall integrity score of 0.330, the Universidad Internacional Valenciana demonstrates a robust foundation in research ethics, characterized by significant strengths in fostering external validation and intellectual autonomy. The institution excels in maintaining very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes global engagement and substantive contribution over insular metrics. However, this positive profile is contrasted by two critical areas of concern: a significant risk level in retracted publications and a medium risk in multiple affiliations, which require immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Psychology. The identified integrity risks, particularly regarding retracted output, directly challenge the institution's mission to build an "expansive chain of quality" and expand reliable knowledge "to the world." To fully realize this vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its clear governance strengths to develop targeted interventions that mitigate these vulnerabilities, ensuring its operational practices are in complete alignment with its commitment to excellence and social impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.648, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.476. This moderate deviation suggests that the university is more exposed than its national peers to practices that inflate this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, a rate significantly above the norm can signal strategic attempts to maximize institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and aligned with the institution's strategic goals rather than metric-driven incentives.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.432, the institution shows a severe discrepancy compared to the national average of -0.174. This atypical level of activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this value points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, possibly indicating recurring methodological weaknesses or malpractice that demand immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.910, compared to the national average of -0.045, demonstrates a consistent and commendable low-risk profile. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for integrity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's exceptionally low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the creation of "echo chambers." This performance confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and outward-looking research culture.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.030 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.276. Although both values fall within a low-risk range, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A consistent presence in discontinued journals, even if minor, can pose reputational risks and suggests a potential need for enhanced information literacy among researchers. Proactive monitoring of publication channels is advisable to ensure that institutional resources are not directed toward 'predatory' or low-quality venues that fail to meet international ethical standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.442, the institution performs significantly better than the national average of 0.497. This result highlights a strong institutional resilience, where internal governance appears to effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The low rate of hyper-authorship indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This reflects a commitment to transparency and individual accountability in the assignment of credit for research.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.182 stands in positive contrast to the national average of 0.185, demonstrating institutional resilience against a common risk in the country. This low gap is a strong indicator of a sustainable research model, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This performance shows that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities rather than a strategic dependence on external collaborations where it does not lead, affirming its autonomy and long-term research viability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.391. This result points to a consistent, low-risk profile that improves upon the national standard. The virtual absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing a sound and ethical research environment.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates in stark contrast to the national average of 0.278, which shows a medium risk level. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The very low reliance on in-house journals signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, effectively avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output, aligning with best international practices.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.277 is statistically similar to the national average of -0.228, indicating a risk level that is normal and expected for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's publication practices are in line with national standards. The low score confirms a general avoidance of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies are artificially divided to inflate productivity. This reflects a commendable focus on communicating significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, which supports the integrity of the scientific record.