World Maritime University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The World Maritime University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.465. This performance indicates a culture of responsible research that is well-aligned with its mission to be a world centre of excellence. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, suggesting a strong focus on quality over quantity and a commitment to external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's thematic strengths in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, a notable area for strategic attention is the gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds leadership, which could pose a long-term challenge to its goal of building sustainable global capacity. To fully embody its mission of excellence and sustainable development, the University is encouraged to leverage its strong integrity culture to foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its global prestige is built upon a foundation of sovereign research capability.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.662, in stark contrast to the national average of 1.550. This demonstrates a clear case of institutional resilience, where the University’s internal governance and affiliation policies appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks observed at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the University’s low rate suggests it has successfully avoided practices like strategic “affiliation shopping” designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.174, which is statistically comparable to the national average of -0.138, the institution exhibits a normal and expected level of post-publication corrections. Retractions are complex events, and a low, controlled rate can signify responsible supervision and a commitment to correcting the scientific record. The current value does not suggest any systemic failure in pre-publication quality control; rather, it aligns with the expected dynamics of a healthy research environment where unintentional errors are managed transparently.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.326 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.328. This statistical normality indicates that the University's research is well-integrated into the global scientific conversation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's balanced score confirms it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber' and that its academic influence is validated by external community recognition, not just internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.307, which, while low, marks a slight divergence from the national environment's almost non-existent risk signal (Z-score of -0.472). This subtle difference suggests a minor but present risk that warrants attention. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This signal, though minor, points to the need for reinforcing information literacy among researchers to ensure institutional resources are not inadvertently directed towards low-quality or predatory media.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.903, significantly lower than the national average of 0.597. This result highlights the University's effective filtering of national trends toward author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', the institution's low score outside these contexts suggests its authorship practices are transparent and uphold individual accountability. This serves as a positive signal that the University distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of 0.078, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.020. This gap suggests that a significant portion of the institution's citation impact may be derived from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, a wide gap signals a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build greater internal capacity to ensure that the University's reputation for excellence is rooted in its own sovereign research leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the already low national standard of -0.350. This demonstrates low-profile consistency and an exemplary absence of risk signals in this area. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's near-zero incidence of this phenomenon is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and quality of contribution over sheer publication volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows an integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a score of -0.262. This total alignment in an area of maximum scientific security is highly positive. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the University mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of redundant output, far below the national average of -0.362. This finding reflects a consistent and low-risk profile. The near absence of this indicator suggests that the institution's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This is a strong sign of a research culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication metrics.