Universidad Militar Nueva Granada

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad Militar Nueva Granada demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.268 that indicates a very low exposure to questionable research practices. This strong foundation is particularly evident in areas such as the near-absence of hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, reflecting a culture of responsible and transparent research. The primary areas for strategic attention are a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals and a noticeable, though nationally contained, gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. These results are complemented by the institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it ranks within the top 10 nationally in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (Top 5), Earth and Planetary Sciences (Top 10), and Mathematics (Top 10). This solid integrity framework directly supports the university's mission to form "integral and socially responsible citizens," as ethical research conduct is the bedrock of social responsibility and academic excellence. By addressing the identified moderate risks, the institution can further align its operational practices with its stated values, ensuring its contributions to society and the Defense sector are not only impactful but also unimpeachable. The recommendation is to leverage this strong position to reinforce researcher training on selecting high-quality publication venues and to develop strategies that foster greater intellectual leadership in collaborative projects.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -0.360 compared to the national average of 0.382, the university demonstrates notable institutional resilience. In a national context where multiple affiliations present a medium-level risk, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, suggesting its control mechanisms effectively mitigate systemic pressures. This indicates that affiliations at the university are more likely to be the legitimate result of researcher mobility and genuine partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," a practice more prevalent in the surrounding environment.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.212 stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk score of 1.232, positioning it as an effective filter against problematic research practices. This significant positive deviation suggests the university acts as a firewall, maintaining rigorous internal quality controls while the national system shows signs of vulnerability. A low rate of retractions indicates that the institution's pre-publication supervision and methodological oversight are functioning correctly, preventing the systemic failures or potential malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retracted work and subsequent reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.181, slightly more favorable than the national low-risk average of -0.131. This performance indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, this controlled rate demonstrates a healthy balance, avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' It suggests the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.306 against a national average of 0.599, the institution shows evidence of differentiated management in a complex area. Although its rate of publication in discontinued journals is at a medium-risk level, reflecting a shared national challenge, its score is considerably better than the country's average. This suggests an ability to moderate risks that are common in its environment. Nevertheless, this indicator remains a critical alert, as a significant presence in such journals can expose the institution to severe reputational harm. It points to a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into 'predatory' or low-quality media.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score of -0.758 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.112, highlighting strong institutional resilience in authorship practices. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low indicator suggests the institution effectively curbs the risk of author list inflation outside of those contexts. This demonstrates a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully mitigating the pressures that can lead to 'honorary' or political authorship practices seen elsewhere in the country.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution demonstrates differentiated management with a Z-score of 0.203, which, while indicating a medium-level risk, is substantially lower than the national average of 1.285. This wide positive gap at the national level suggests a systemic dependency on external partners for impact. The university's more moderate score indicates that while it benefits from collaboration, its scientific prestige is less reliant on exogenous leadership than its peers. This invites a strategic reflection on how to further build internal capacity to ensure that its excellence metrics are increasingly the result of its own structural and sustainable intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.717, the university's performance shows an exemplary low-profile consistency. The near-total absence of risk signals in this area, surpassing even the solid national standard, points to a research environment that prioritizes quality over quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship. This institution's excellent result suggests a culture that upholds the integrity of the scientific record by fostering a balanced and realistic approach to productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 marks a case of preventive isolation from a national trend, where the country's score is a medium-risk 2.465. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, showing a near-complete avoidance of publishing in its own journals. This practice is a hallmark of strong governance, as it sidesteps the conflicts of interest inherent in an institution acting as both judge and party. By ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review, the university avoids academic endogamy and enhances its global visibility and credibility, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate résumés.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university displays an outstanding low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -0.503, significantly better than the country's already low-risk score of -0.100. This near-absence of signals for redundant publication or 'salami slicing' reflects a deep commitment to ethical research practices. It indicates that the institution's researchers are focused on presenting coherent and impactful studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a single body of work into minimal publishable units. This approach not only strengthens the scientific evidence base but also demonstrates a culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over metric-driven volume.