| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.276 | 1.104 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.484 | -0.184 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.127 | 0.152 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.279 | -0.219 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.258 | 0.160 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.586 | 0.671 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.951 | -0.684 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.934 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.538 | -0.068 |
Universidad Mayor presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.136 that reflects a solid foundation of good practices alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over fundamental integrity indicators, including very low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications, which strongly aligns with its mission to uphold the 'rules of scientific rigour.' This robust internal governance is particularly evident in its thematic strengths, where, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, it holds prominent national positions in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine. However, medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations and hyper-authorship suggest potential vulnerabilities that could challenge the institutional commitment to 'excellence' and transparent knowledge generation. To fully realize its mission of contributing meaningfully to the national and global community, the institution is encouraged to proactively address these emerging patterns, thereby ensuring that its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated ethical and academic values.
With an institutional Z-score of 2.276, significantly higher than the national average of 1.104, the university shows a greater propensity for multiple affiliations than its national peers. This suggests a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could undermine the transparency of institutional contributions and merits closer examination.
The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.484 indicating a very low rate of retracted publications, which is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.184). This absence of risk signals suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can be complex events, and a low rate like this one points towards a culture of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, where potential errors are managed effectively before they enter the scientific record, reinforcing the institution's commitment to integrity.
The university exhibits a strong commitment to external validation, with a Z-score of -1.127 for institutional self-citation, in stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.152). This result indicates a successful preventive isolation from broader national dynamics that might encourage endogamy. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining such a low rate, the institution actively avoids the risks of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through internal dynamics, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global scientific community.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.279, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.219. This suggests a commendable level of due diligence in its dissemination strategies. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert, exposing an institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting a lack of information literacy. By effectively managing this indicator, the university demonstrates a commitment to channeling its scientific output through reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thus avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
The university's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: 0.258) is elevated compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.160), indicating a higher exposure to the complexities of large-scale co-authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, a pattern of hyper-authorship outside these contexts can be a signal of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This indicator serves as a signal for the institution to review its authorship practices and ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than 'honorary' or political attributions.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of 0.586, which is below the national average of 0.671. This indicates that the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous. The university's more contained gap suggests a healthier balance between collaborative impact and the development of its own internal capacity for intellectual leadership, though it remains an area for continued strategic focus.
The university shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authorship, with a Z-score of -0.951, which is well within the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.684). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of a balanced research culture. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score in this area suggests a healthy focus on quality over quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution effectively avoids the risks of academic endogamy, with a Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals, which is significantly lower than the medium-risk national average of 0.934. This demonstrates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external validation and global visibility. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. By not replicating this national trend, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, strengthening its credibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
With a Z-score of -0.538, the university displays a very low rate of redundant output, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.068). This indicates a strong adherence to practices that favor substantive contributions over publication volume. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's excellent performance on this indicator suggests its researchers are focused on presenting complete, significant findings, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
