| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.967 | 1.104 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.184 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.204 | 0.152 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.216 | -0.219 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.312 | 0.160 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.306 | 0.671 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.758 | -0.684 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.934 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.622 | -0.068 |
Universidad Santo Tomas demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.013 that indicates a performance well-aligned with national and international standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its commitment to external validation and responsible collaboration, evidenced by exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and publication in its own journals. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes global impact and transparent authorship. Areas requiring strategic monitoring include a higher-than-average Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a notable presence in Discontinued Journals, which warrant a review of affiliation policies and researcher guidance on publication venues. These operational aspects are critical, as the institution shows significant competitive advantages in key research areas, highlighted by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, including a Top 5 national position in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics and a Top 10 standing in Veterinary. The institution's mission to contribute to national development through the "generation of knowledge" is strongly supported by its overall low-risk profile; however, the identified vulnerabilities could subtly undermine this commitment to excellence. By proactively addressing journal selection criteria and affiliation transparency, Universidad Santo Tomas can further solidify its position as a benchmark for academic integrity and responsible research in the region.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.967, which is notably higher than the national average of 1.104. This suggests that the university is more exposed to the dynamics of multiple affiliations than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate indicates a greater potential for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This pattern warrants a careful review of internal policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and accurately reflect the substantive contributions of the researchers and the institution.
With a Z-score of -0.259, which is below the national average of -0.184, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing its publication quality. This very low incidence of retractions suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are more rigorous than the national standard. This result reflects a responsible scientific culture where the correction of the scientific record is a rare event, indicating that potential errors are effectively identified and addressed before dissemination.
The institution demonstrates significant resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level. While the country shows a tendency toward institutional self-citation (Z-score of 0.152), the university maintains a very low rate (Z-score of -0.204). This divergence indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively prevent the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' By avoiding the disproportionate validation of its own work, the university ensures its research seeks and receives sufficient external scrutiny, protecting its academic influence from being oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.
The university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers, with a Z-score of 0.216 in contrast to the country's average of -0.219. This moderate deviation serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding suggests an urgent need to reinforce information literacy and provide clear guidance to researchers to prevent the investment of resources in 'predatory' or low-quality practices that undermine the value of their scientific work.
The institution effectively contains a risk that is more common within the national scientific system. Its Z-score of -0.312 is significantly lower than the country's average of 0.160, indicating that institutional policies successfully filter out practices of author list inflation. This suggests a strong governance framework that promotes transparency and clear individual accountability, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and the use of 'honorary' or political authorships that can dilute the meaning of scientific contribution.
The university demonstrates a robust capacity to generate impact from its own intellectual leadership, resisting a national trend of dependency on external partners. While the country shows a significant gap where impact is often tied to collaboration (Z-score of 0.671), the institution's score of -0.306 indicates that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous. This reflects a high level of internal research capacity, ensuring that its excellence metrics are a result of its own capabilities rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary leadership, thus guaranteeing the sustainability of its scientific influence.
The institution manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard, as shown by its Z-score of -0.758, which is lower than the country's average of -0.684. This prudent profile indicates a very low incidence of authors with extreme publication volumes, suggesting a healthy balance between quantity and quality. Such a result points to an academic environment that discourages practices like coercive authorship or excessive data fragmentation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contributions over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution effectively isolates itself from risk dynamics observed in its national environment. In contrast to a national tendency to publish in institutional journals (Z-score of 0.934), the university shows a near-total absence of this practice, with a Z-score of -0.268. This preventive disconnection demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing global dissemination channels, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its international visibility and credibility.
The institution's performance aligns perfectly with a low-risk national environment, showing a complete absence of signals related to this indicator. With a Z-score of -0.622, significantly below the already low country average of -0.068, there is no evidence of practices like data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This low-profile consistency demonstrates a research culture that values the publication of coherent and significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby strengthening the quality and reliability of the scientific evidence it contributes to the academic community.
