| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.716 | 0.382 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | 1.232 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.249 | -0.131 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.372 | 0.599 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.141 | 0.112 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
5.028 | 1.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.013 | -0.717 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 2.465 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.935 | -0.100 |
The Universidad de Cartagena demonstrates a robust and commendable culture of scientific integrity, marked by a strong overall performance with an integrity score of 0.330. The institution exhibits exceptional control over core research practices, with very low risk levels in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. These strengths indicate a solid foundation of quality control, external validation, and a commitment to impactful, non-fragmented research. However, this profile is contrasted by significant strategic vulnerabilities, most notably a critical dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact, and medium-level risks associated with multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are concentrated in key areas such as Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. While the institution's strong ethical practices align perfectly with its mission to form professionals with "ethical and axiological foundations," the identified risks, particularly the gap in intellectual leadership, pose a challenge to its goal of "leading... development processes." To fully realize its mission, the university should leverage its proven internal governance to develop strategies that build endogenous research capacity and ensure due diligence in its collaborative and dissemination practices, thereby transforming its solid integrity base into sustainable, independent scientific leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.716, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.382. This result suggests a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating that the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its national peers within a context already marked by this trend. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's elevated rate warrants a review of its affiliation policies. A disproportionately high value can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the university's unique brand and misrepresent its direct contribution to research outputs.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates an exceptional record, especially when contrasted with the country's significant-risk score of 1.232. This environmental disconnection highlights a key institutional strength, showing that the university maintains rigorous internal governance and quality control mechanisms that are independent of and far superior to the national situation. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the average, particularly in a high-risk environment, is a powerful indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that the university's pre-publication review processes are effective in preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that may be affecting other institutions in the country.
The university's Z-score of -1.249 is exceptionally low, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.131. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals not only meets but exceeds the national standard for external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate strongly indicates that the institution avoids scientific isolation and 'echo chambers.' Instead, its work is being actively validated and integrated by the global scientific community, confirming that its academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.372 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.599, signaling high exposure to this risk. This pattern suggests the university is more susceptible than its peers to channeling research into questionable publication venues. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be directed to media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.141, a low-risk value that contrasts positively with the country's medium-risk average of 0.112. This indicates a notable level of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a controlled rate outside these contexts is a sign of good practice. The university's performance suggests it effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 5.028 is a significant red flag, drastically amplifying a vulnerability that is already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.285). This accentuation of risk points to a critical strategic issue. A very wide positive gap, as seen here, signals a severe sustainability risk where the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result urgently invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This dependency could undermine its long-term scientific autonomy and authority.
With a Z-score of -0.013, the institution's risk level is low and statistically normal, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.717. This score points to an incipient vulnerability. While the current level does not signal a major problem, it does show signals that warrant review before they potentially escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a gentle alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, ensuring that institutional pressures do not inadvertently encourage practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, marking a clear case of preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately prevalent in the country (Z-score of 2.465). This result is highly positive, indicating the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, which mitigates conflicts of interest and enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, reinforcing its reputation for quality.
The institution's Z-score of -0.935 is very low, reflecting a strong performance that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard of -0.100. This low-profile consistency in avoiding redundant publications is a sign of high scientific integrity. It indicates that the university's researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
