Universita San Raffaele

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universita San Raffaele demonstrates a solid scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.206 that positions it favorably against the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low risk levels for retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals, indicating robust quality control mechanisms and a culture oriented towards external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk in the rate of multiple affiliations, output in discontinued journals, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities suggest a need to refine policies around author affiliation, journal selection, and strategies for fostering endogenous research capacity. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows significant scientific activity in fields such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication in low-quality channels and dependency on external partners, could undermine the pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility central to any university's mission. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Universita San Raffaele can build upon its strong integrity foundation, ensuring its reputational and scientific capital continues to grow.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.668, which contrasts with the national average of -0.497. This moderate deviation indicates that the center exhibits a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national norm suggests that a review of institutional policies on affiliation declaration may be warranted to ensure that all affiliations reflect substantive collaboration and contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.794, significantly lower than the national average of -0.244, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in minimizing retracted publications. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, points to highly effective pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms. This result reflects a strong institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they can impact the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.989 is in stark opposition to the national average of 0.340, which shows a medium risk. This reflects a successful preventive isolation, whereby the center does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. This practice mitigates the risk of creating 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is measured by broad community recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.137 indicates a medium risk, diverging from the low-risk national average of -0.290. This moderate deviation suggests the center is more susceptible than its peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.366, the institution shows a medium risk level, which represents a state of relative containment when compared to the significant national risk level of 1.457. Although some signals of potential authorship inflation exist, the center operates with more control than the national average, effectively moderating a widespread vulnerability. This suggests that while the institution is not immune to practices like 'honorary' authorship, its governance mechanisms are more effective at distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices that dilute individual accountability.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.986, while at a medium risk level similar to the national average of 0.283, is significantly higher, indicating high exposure to this particular vulnerability. This wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is comparatively low—signals a sustainability risk. The score suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, resulting from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural research capacity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.625. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center completely avoids the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes present elsewhere in the country. This very low score is a strong positive indicator, suggesting an institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer quantitative output, effectively preventing risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is even lower than the country's already very low average of -0.177. This signals a state of total operational silence on this indicator. By overwhelmingly favoring external, independent dissemination channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice reinforces its commitment to rigorous, impartial peer review and enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.232, which is notably better than the medium-risk national average of 0.224. This performance highlights a strong degree of institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the country's systemic risks related to data fragmentation. This low score suggests that the institution fosters a research environment that discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units—and instead promotes the publication of coherent, significant contributions to knowledge.