| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.156 | 0.382 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 1.232 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.536 | -0.131 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.663 | 0.599 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.398 | 0.112 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.069 | 1.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.717 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 2.465 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.481 | -0.100 |
The Universidad de Pamplona presents a robust and balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.037 that indicates a general alignment with international scientific standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of individual and editorial conduct, particularly with very low risk in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, it effectively insulates itself from significant national-level risks, such as high rates of retracted publications. Key areas for strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, a notable dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a moderate tendency towards redundant publications. These findings, when contextualized with the institution's strong performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, highlight a solid foundation of research excellence. However, to fully realize its mission of "integral and innovative training" and "research as a central practice" with "social responsibility," it is crucial to address these vulnerabilities. Practices that compromise the quality of dissemination channels or the originality of contributions could undermine the credibility and long-term impact of its research. By strengthening governance in these specific areas, the University can better safeguard its reputation and ensure its scientific output genuinely reflects the high standards of integrity and innovation stated in its mission.
The institution's Z-score of -0.156 is in the low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the country's medium-risk average of 0.382. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University’s contained rate indicates that its policies effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice that may be more prevalent in the broader national context.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.221, the institution stands in sharp contrast to the significant-risk national average of 1.232. This marked difference suggests the institution functions as an effective filter, acting as a firewall against the risk practices that are widespread nationally. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in quality control. The University's excellent performance here indicates that its pre-publication supervision and integrity culture are robust, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that appears to be a vulnerability in the national system.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.536, which is even lower than the country's low-risk average of -0.131. This demonstrates that the University manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s very low rate shows a strong commitment to external validation and avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This ensures that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.663 places it in the medium-risk category, slightly above the national average of 0.599. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the center is more prone than its peers to selecting problematic dissemination channels. This is a critical alert, as a high proportion of publications in such journals suggests that due diligence may be failing. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.398, which is significantly better than the country's medium-risk score of 0.112. This points to strong institutional resilience, where control mechanisms effectively mitigate a risk that is more common nationally. Outside of "Big Science," hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute accountability. The University's low score suggests its research culture successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving transparency and individual responsibility.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 2.069, the institution shows a higher exposure to this indicator than the national average of 1.285. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's high-impact metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from a tactical positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.717. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's exemplary score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution has a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which signifies a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where the country has a medium-risk score of 2.465. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the University ensures its scientific production bypasses potential 'fast tracks' and is instead subjected to independent, external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive mechanisms.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.481 represents a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.100. This suggests the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors that lead to data fragmentation than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior warrants review, as it can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
