| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.331 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.761 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.863 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.864 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.723 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.180 | 0.074 |
The Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo demonstrates a solid foundation in scientific integrity, with a notable overall score of 0.667, characterized by robust controls in most areas but punctuated by a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes quality control, individual accountability, and external validation. However, this positive profile is severely undermined by a significant-risk score in publications within discontinued journals, which not only exceeds the national average but also poses a direct threat to the institution's reputation. This specific weakness starkly contrasts with the institution's outstanding national leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Environmental Science (ranked #1 in Ecuador), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (#3), and Physics and Astronomy (#3). The mission to "train competent professionals and researchers, who contribute to the sustainable development of the country" is compromised when research is channeled through low-quality or predatory venues, as this devalues the scientific contribution and contradicts the core principle of excellence. To safeguard its academic prestige and fully align its practices with its mission, the institution must urgently implement a strategic plan focused on enhancing information literacy and enforcing rigorous criteria for selecting publication channels, thereby ensuring its significant research contributions achieve the legitimate impact they deserve.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.331, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.920. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university demonstrates a more controlled and differentiated management of this practice. This suggests that while multiple affiliations exist as a legitimate result of collaboration, the institution is less exposed than its national peers to the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit. The more moderate rate indicates a healthier and potentially more transparent collaborative pattern.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution shows a very low risk of retracted publications, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.637). This demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. The data suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are exceptionally effective, preventing the systemic failures or potential malpractice that may be leading to a higher rate of retractions elsewhere in the country. This absence of risk signals is a significant indicator of a robust and responsible integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.761, a medium-risk value that is nonetheless notably lower than the national average of 1.096. This points to a differentiated management approach where the institution successfully moderates a practice that is more pronounced across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, the institution's lower rate suggests it is less susceptible to creating scientific "echo chambers." This indicates a healthier balance between internal consolidation and external validation, reducing the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating that its academic influence is more likely driven by broader community recognition than by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 4.863 represents a significant risk and is a global red flag, as it surpasses the already critical national average of 3.894. This is the most urgent integrity challenge identified, indicating that the institution is not only participating in a compromised national dynamic but is actually amplifying it. This high score constitutes a critical alert regarding a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a substantial portion of scientific production is being directed to media lacking international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.864, the institution maintains a prudent profile, showing a lower risk than the national standard (-0.241). This demonstrates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national average. The data suggests a well-regulated environment where authorship lists are less likely to be inflated with "honorary" or political attributions. This responsible practice enhances individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and avoiding the dilution of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.723, a low-risk value that reflects significant institutional resilience, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.454. This negative score is a strong positive signal, indicating that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and self-sufficient. Unlike the national trend, which may suggest a reliance on external partners for prestige, this institution demonstrates that its scientific excellence is a result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating any risk of its reputation being dependent and exogenous.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.431. This low-profile consistency indicates an environment where the balance between quantity and quality is well-maintained. The complete absence of signals for this indicator suggests that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or extreme data fragmentation simply to increase publication counts. This reinforces the integrity of the scientific record and shows a commitment to meaningful intellectual contribution over purely metric-driven productivity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a total operational silence in this area, a value even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.153. This is an exemplary finding, showing a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.180 signals strong institutional resilience against a practice that poses a medium risk at the national level (0.074). This discrepancy suggests that the institution has effective control mechanisms or cultural norms that discourage the artificial inflation of productivity through data fragmentation. By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap, the institution demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than "minimal publishable units," thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
