| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.815 | 0.382 |
|
Retracted Output
|
5.217 | 1.232 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.518 | -0.131 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.938 | 0.599 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.062 | 0.112 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.553 | 1.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.470 | -0.717 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 2.465 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.799 | -0.100 |
The Universidad de Sucre presents a mixed integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.449, indicating areas of remarkable strength alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates robust performance in indicators related to academic independence and authorship control, such as an exceptionally low rate of publication in its own journals and effective mitigation of hyper-authorship and self-citation risks. These strengths suggest a culture that values external validation and rigorous peer review. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by critical alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which are severe outliers even within the national context. These weaknesses, combined with medium-risk signals in affiliation strategies and data fragmentation, directly challenge the university's mission to foster "academic excellence" and train "upright professionals." The institution's recognized leadership in thematic areas like Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Social Sciences, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of scientific credibility. To protect and enhance this reputation, it is imperative to address the identified integrity gaps, ensuring that all research practices fully align with the university's commitment to sustainable and socially responsible development.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.815, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.382. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a greater propensity for this practice than its national peers. This suggests a high exposure to the associated risks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's elevated rate warrants a review to ensure these are not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or instances of “affiliation shopping.” The data points to a need for clearer internal guidelines on affiliation declaration to maintain transparency and accurately reflect institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of 5.217, the institution's rate of retractions is critically high, positioning it as a global red flag that far exceeds the already significant national average of 1.232. This extreme value suggests that failures in pre-publication quality control may be systemic rather than isolated incidents. While some retractions can signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate of this magnitude alerts to a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates a high probability of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and decisive qualitative verification by management to protect the university's scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.518, which is even lower than the country's low-risk average of -0.131. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate is a positive signal that it avoids scientific isolation and 'echo chambers.' This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is healthily validated by the global community's recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.938 is a significant-risk signal that sharply accentuates the vulnerabilities present in the national system, where the average is a medium-risk 0.599. This disparity indicates that the university is channeling a significant portion of its scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence of its researchers in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. There is an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter publication policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.
The university shows strong institutional resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -1.062, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.112. This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed nationally. The data indicates a commendable ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices. This control helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.
With a Z-score of 1.553, the institution shows higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 1.285. This wider gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, a high value in this indicator signals a potential sustainability risk, as it raises questions about whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in projects led by others. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting internal research leadership to build more endogenous and sustainable impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.470 indicates a low-risk profile, yet it also signals an incipient vulnerability as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.717. While the current level is not alarming, this subtle difference suggests the emergence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. It serves as a proactive reminder to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality in scientific output, guarding against potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 2.465. This is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production overwhelmingly passes through independent external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs. This practice enhances global visibility and reinforces a commitment to standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 1.799 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.100. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to risk factors that encourage data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, highlighting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
