| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.370 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.089 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.257 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.248 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.080 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.345 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.332 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.674 | 0.074 |
The Universidad Catolica de Cuenca presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.696 that reflects a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, showing very low risk in redundant publications and output in its own journals, and a prudent approach to hyper-authorship. These strengths are foundational to building a culture of integrity. However, this positive performance is overshadowed by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, which demand immediate strategic intervention. Thematically, the university shows notable strength with a Top 10 national ranking in Business, Management and Accounting, and strong positions in Energy and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. These high-risk indicators directly challenge the university's mission to "develop critical thinking" and "generate competent professionals," as they suggest that quality control and due diligence in publication may be compromised. To fully align its scientific practice with its mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its areas of strong governance to develop targeted policies that mitigate its most severe risks, thereby ensuring its thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.370 is notably lower than the national average of 0.920, indicating a more controlled approach to a risk that is common within the country. This suggests that the university has effective management practices that moderate the tendency toward multiple affiliations. While such affiliations can be legitimate results of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's contained score reflects a differentiated strategy that successfully avoids the potential pitfalls of "affiliation shopping," maintaining a clearer and more transparent representation of its collaborative footprint compared to the national trend.
With a Z-score of 2.089, the institution's rate of retracted publications is significantly higher than the national average of 0.637. This finding suggests that the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system, pointing to a critical area for review. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This high Z-score serves as a serious alert to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates a Z-score of 0.257 in institutional self-citation, which is substantially lower than the national average of 1.096. This indicates a commendable and differentiated management of this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's low rate suggests it successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This performance indicates that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 5.248 for publications in discontinued journals is alarmingly high, exceeding an already critical national average of 3.894. This positions the university as a leader in risk metrics within a highly compromised national environment, constituting a global red flag. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.080, the institution shows a much lower incidence of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of -0.241. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. The institution's low score is a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, promoting transparency and individual responsibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.345 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.454. This demonstrates a high exposure to dependency risk, suggesting the center is more prone than its national peers to relying on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a risk to sustainability. This result invites reflection on whether the university's prestige stems from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, highlighting a need to strengthen internal research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -0.332 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.431, indicating an incipient vulnerability in this area. While still in the low-risk category, this subtle increase warrants review before it escalates. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal, though minor, points to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality and alerts to the possibility of coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. Proactive monitoring is recommended to ensure productivity remains credible.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is even lower than the country's already low average of -0.153, demonstrating a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This reflects total operational silence regarding academic endogamy. In-house journals can be valuable, but over-reliance on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's exceptionally low score indicates that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, which is a testament to its commitment to competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.674, the institution shows a complete absence of risk, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.074, which indicates a medium-level risk. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the problematic dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—fragmenting studies to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's excellent score shows it actively avoids this practice, prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over volume and thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
