Universidad Santo Tomas, Colombia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad Santo Tomás, Colombia, demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of 0.013. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices, its capacity for generating autonomous impact, and its resistance to academic endogamy, often performing significantly better than the national average in these areas. This solid foundation is complemented by strong academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in key thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences. However, this profile of excellence is contrasted by vulnerabilities in publication strategies, specifically a tendency towards redundant output (salami slicing) and a higher-than-average rate of publication in discontinued journals. These risks present a direct challenge to the university's mission to foster ethical and critical responses to societal needs, as questionable publication practices can undermine the credibility and impact of its research. To fully align its operational excellence with its foundational mission, the institution is encouraged to focus on refining its publication and affiliation guidelines, thereby ensuring that its strong internal integrity culture translates into every aspect of its scientific dissemination.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.595 in this indicator, which is elevated when compared to the national average of 0.382. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, this score indicates that the institution is more exposed to this particular risk than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate suggests a potential over-reliance on this practice. It serves as an alert that affiliation strategies may be geared towards inflating institutional credit rather than solely reflecting substantive collaboration, warranting a review of internal policies to ensure transparency and proper attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the country's significant-risk score of 1.232. This disparity highlights the university's role as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from a problematic national trend. While the national context suggests a systemic vulnerability in pre-publication quality control, the institution's performance indicates that its integrity culture and supervisory mechanisms are robust and effective. This low rate is a positive sign of responsible research conduct, showing that potential errors are managed before they compromise the public scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.881, a value indicating a very low risk that is even more favorable than the country's already low-risk average of -0.131. This demonstrates a clear pattern of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a strong indicator that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, not inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 1.252, a medium-risk value that is notably higher than the national average of 0.599. This reveals a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to this issue than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a concerning portion of its scientific output may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.097, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in hyper-authorship, demonstrating institutional resilience against the country's medium-risk environment (Z-score of 0.112). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science,' the institution's low score indicates that its authorship practices are generally transparent and accountable. This performance successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or inflated authorship, a practice more prevalent in its surrounding context.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.951, a very low-risk value that signifies strong autonomous impact. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's medium-risk score of 1.285 suggests a wider dependency on external partners for impact. The institution's minimal gap indicates that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This is a key marker of scientific maturity and sustainability, demonstrating that its high-impact contributions are the result of genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic reliance on external collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, signifying a very low risk of hyperprolific authorship that is well below the country's low-risk average of -0.717. This result points to low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already healthy national standard. This exceptionally low rate suggests a sound balance between productivity and quality within the institution. It indicates a culture that does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of publication volume over the integrity of the scientific record, which can become a risk when extreme individual output is observed.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a national environment where this practice is a medium-level risk (country Z-score of 2.465). This preventive stance demonstrates a clear commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By shunning over-reliance on in-house journals, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which mitigates potential conflicts of interest and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.459, a medium-risk level that marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.100. This difference suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. This elevated score serves as an alert for 'salami slicing,' a practice where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This deviation from the norm indicates a need to review internal publication guidelines to reinforce the importance of presenting significant, coherent new knowledge over maximizing publication counts, a practice that can distort the scientific evidence base.