| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.926 | -0.390 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.032 | -0.128 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.334 | 0.515 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.478 | -0.414 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.774 | 0.106 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.224 | 1.023 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.095 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.841 | 0.023 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.115 | -0.068 |
The Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.252. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk research practices, particularly in its minimal rates of hyperprolific authorship, publication in discontinued journals, and multiple affiliations. These positive indicators are complemented by a notable capacity to mitigate systemic national risks related to hyper-authorship and dependency on external collaborations for impact. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate rate of retracted output and a high reliance on institutional journals, which could challenge its mission to uphold the "highest academic level" and ensure "democratic forms of distribution of knowledge." The university's strong academic standing, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top national institutions in Psychology (3rd), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (5th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (6th), provides a solid foundation of excellence. By addressing the identified vulnerabilities, the institution can further align its operational practices with its core mission, reinforcing its role as a leader in building a just and critical society through research of unimpeachable quality.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.926, positioning it in a very low-risk category and contrasting with the national average of -0.390, which sits at a low-risk level. This result indicates a profile of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already positive national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that its collaborative patterns are transparent and do not suggest any strategic inflation of institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and accountable research partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.032 (medium risk), the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.128 (low risk), suggesting a greater sensitivity to factors leading to publication retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a score in this range suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This elevated rate, when compared to the country's lower risk profile, serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture, indicating that recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision may require immediate qualitative review by management.
The institution's Z-score of 0.334 is situated within the medium-risk band, as is the national average of 0.515. However, the university's lower score points to a differentiated management approach, successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can create 'echo chambers.' In this context, the institution demonstrates better control, suggesting that while it builds upon its established research lines, it does so with greater external validation than its national counterparts, thereby mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation and fostering a healthier integration with the global scientific community.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -0.478, which is firmly in the very low-risk category and even surpasses the country's already low-risk average of -0.414. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even below the national baseline. This outstanding result indicates that the institution exercises exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. It effectively avoids channeling its scientific production into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its reputation and ensuring its resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.774 (low risk), the institution demonstrates significant institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.106 (medium risk). This disparity suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation. The institution’s low score indicates that it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable authorship practices, acting as a firewall against a national trend and upholding standards of individual accountability and transparency.
The institution records a Z-score of 0.224 (medium risk), which is considerably lower than the national average of 1.023 (also medium risk). This difference highlights a case of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that is far more pronounced nationally. A wide positive gap signals a risk of 'dependent prestige,' where impact is driven by external collaborations rather than internal capacity. The institution's more balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less reliant on external leadership, reflecting a healthier development of its own research capabilities compared to the national trend.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of this risk signal and outperforming the country's already very low-risk average of -1.095. This result represents total operational silence on this indicator. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship. The university's score strongly suggests a healthy research environment where there is a clear focus on the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of publications, preventing imbalances that could compromise academic standards.
With a Z-score of 0.841, the institution falls into a medium-risk category, a level it shares with the national average of 0.023. However, the institution's significantly higher score indicates high exposure, suggesting it is much more prone to this risk than its peers. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. This high value warns that the university may be using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts, a practice that limits global visibility and raises questions about whether its output is validated through standard competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score of -0.115 (low risk) is nearly identical to the national average of -0.068 (low risk), indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context and size. While massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity—the institution's low score suggests this is not a prevalent issue. The minimal presence of this indicator reflects a well-managed process where the prioritization of volume over significant new knowledge is effectively controlled and aligned with national standards.
