| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.717 | 0.382 |
|
Retracted Output
|
5.517 | 1.232 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.066 | -0.131 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.824 | 0.599 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.343 | 0.112 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.471 | 1.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.717 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.880 | 2.465 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.736 | -0.100 |
Universidad Simon Bolivar presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.405 indicating a need for strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths and a robust culture of integrity in key areas, showing very low risk in institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities, particularly a significant rate of retracted publications and a high volume of output in discontinued journals. These weaknesses require immediate attention as they directly conflict with the university's mission to foster "research and innovation development" based on "equity" and "values." The institution's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially its top-tier national ranking in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, provides a solid foundation for growth. To safeguard this reputation and fully align its operational practices with its social commitment, the university must urgently address its high-risk indicators, transforming these vulnerabilities into new strengths in scientific governance.
The institution's Z-score of 0.717 is higher than the national average of 0.382, both within a medium-risk context. This suggests the university is more exposed than its national peers to practices that could inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate signals a need for review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not merely strategic attempts at “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the institution's core identity and misrepresent its collaborative contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 5.517 is alarmingly high, significantly surpassing the already critical national average of 1.232. This represents a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in this negative metric within a compromised national environment. A rate this far above the global average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, this alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -1.066, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.131. This result indicates a total absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. The university's research appears to be well-integrated into the global scientific conversation, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This strong external orientation confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 3.824, the institution shows a significant-risk level, amplifying a vulnerability that is a medium-risk concern for the country (0.599). This indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.343 places it in a low-risk category, demonstrating resilience against the medium-risk trend observed nationally (0.112). This favorable result suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effective in mitigating the country's systemic risks related to authorship inflation. The data indicates that authorship practices are generally transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 1.471 is slightly higher than the national average of 1.285, placing both in the medium-risk category. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. This invites reflection on whether the university's prestige stems from its own structural capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.413, a significantly better performance than the national low-risk average of -0.717. This absence of risk signals indicates that the university does not have issues with hyperprolific authors. This suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of 0.880, the institution shows a more controlled approach to publishing in its own journals compared to the national average of 2.465, though both are in the medium-risk range. This demonstrates differentiated management, moderating a risk that appears more common in the country. By limiting its dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, signaling a greater commitment to independent external peer review for validating its research and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.736 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting with the country's low-risk average of -0.100. This excellent result shows a consistent absence of risk signals related to redundant publications. It indicates that researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent findings strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture that values new knowledge over volume.
