| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.212 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.493 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.954 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.826 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.058 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.768 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.603 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.140 | 0.074 |
The Escuela Politécnica Nacional demonstrates a solid performance with an overall integrity score of 0.554, reflecting a profile with significant strengths but also specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits exemplary control in key areas of scientific integrity, particularly with very low-risk indicators for Retracted Output and Output in Institutional Journals, suggesting robust quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by significant-risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output and medium-risk levels in Hyperprolific Authorship and publication in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities could undermine the institution's mission to generate and disseminate knowledge with "ethical awareness" and "social responsibility." The institution's academic excellence is evident in its strong national positioning within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Physics and Astronomy (2nd in Ecuador), Chemistry (3rd), Computer Science (3rd), and Engineering (3rd). To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission and scientific leadership, it is recommended that the institution develops targeted policies to address authorship inflation and enhance guidance on selecting high-quality publication venues, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 0.212 is notably lower than the national average of 0.920. This indicates that the institution exercises more effective management over a risk that is common throughout the country's scientific system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The Escuela Politécnica Nacional appears to have differentiated policies or a culture that moderates the practice of “affiliation shopping” more successfully than its national peers, reflecting a more controlled and transparent approach to institutional representation.
With a Z-score of -0.493, the institution shows a near-total absence of retracted publications, a stark contrast to the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.637. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a high rate often points to systemic failures in quality control. The institution's excellent result suggests its pre-publication review and methodological rigor are strong, effectively shielding it from the vulnerabilities that may lead to recurring malpractice elsewhere and reinforcing its commitment to a culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.954, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is lower than the national average of 1.096. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the institution moderates a risk that is prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can create scientific 'echo chambers' and inflate impact through endogamous dynamics. The institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than the national standard indicates a healthier balance, relying less on internal validation and engaging more with the broader scientific community for scrutiny and recognition.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.826, a medium-risk signal that nonetheless demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's critical Z-score of 3.894. Although risk signals are present, the institution operates with more order than the national average, which is highly exposed to this issue. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's relative success suggests it is partially mitigating the reputational damage and resource waste associated with 'predatory' practices, though further strengthening of information literacy for researchers is still warranted.
A Z-score of 3.058 places the institution at a significant-risk level, creating a severe discrepancy with the country's low-risk average of -0.241. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high score outside these contexts can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This critical anomaly suggests an urgent need to investigate whether 'honorary' or political authorship practices are prevalent, as they compromise transparency and the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 1.768 is considerably higher than the country's average of 0.454, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to this alert signal than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, inviting strategic reflection on building genuine internal capacity rather than relying on exogenous impact.
With a Z-score of 0.603, the institution shows a medium-risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk profile (-0.431). This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is not only in the very low-risk category but is also below the country's already low average of -0.153. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The institution's exemplary score indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively and avoiding the use of internal channels to bypass global standards.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.140, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (0.074). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks related to data fragmentation. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' artificially inflates productivity at the expense of scientific substance. The institution's prudent profile indicates a culture that prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
