| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.540 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.465 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.240 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.025 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.027 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.278 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
3.171 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.550 | 0.074 |
The Universidad del Azuay presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 1.085 that reflects both exceptional strengths and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in fundamental areas of scientific integrity, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results suggest robust internal quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by critical alerts in three key areas: a significant rate of output in Discontinued Journals, an unusually high incidence of Hyperprolific Authors, and a pronounced Gap between its total scientific impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. These weaknesses require immediate strategic attention as they pose a direct challenge to the university's mission to be "ethically committed to society" and to "contribute to science and knowledge." While the institution's leadership is undisputed in strategic thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data—ranking #1 in Ecuador for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and in the top tier for Environmental Science and Agricultural and Biological Sciences—the identified integrity risks could undermine the long-term sustainability and credibility of these achievements. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that the university implement targeted governance policies and training programs focused on responsible publication channels and authorship practices, thereby ensuring its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.540, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.920. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the institution's higher score indicates a greater exposure to the underlying risks of this practice. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to dynamics that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the increased frequency at the institution warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they consistently reflect genuine and substantial collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.465, the institution demonstrates an outstandingly low incidence of retracted publications, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.637). This result is a strong positive indicator of the effectiveness of its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Unlike the national trend, the university does not show signals of systemic failures in research integrity or methodological rigor. This performance suggests that its supervision and review processes are robust, fostering a culture of scientific responsibility that successfully corrects errors before they compromise the public record.
The university exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.240, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 1.096. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risk of endogamy prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This low score suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 3.025 signals a significant risk, placing it in a state of attenuated alert within a critical national context (country Z-score of 3.894). Although the university is a global outlier in this metric, its performance shows slightly more control than the national average, which is already deeply compromised. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score 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, exposing it to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution registering a medium-risk Z-score of 1.027 while the country maintains a low-risk profile (Z-score of -0.241). This difference suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this score serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices. The divergence from the national norm calls for an internal review to ensure that author lists accurately reflect individual accountability and transparency.
The university's Z-score of 3.278 is a significant alert, indicating a risk accentuation that amplifies the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (country Z-score of 0.454). This extremely wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. The high value strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, posing a long-term threat to its scientific autonomy.
This indicator reveals a severe discrepancy, with the institution showing a critical Z-score of 3.171 in a national environment with very low risk (country Z-score of -0.431). This atypical risk activity is a major red flag and requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's high score alerts to potential systemic imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to critical risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This dynamic prioritizes metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demands an urgent audit of its causes.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's already minimal score of -0.153. This exemplary performance indicates an absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for competitive validation and global visibility. This commitment to external scrutiny reinforces the credibility of its research and prevents potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party.
The university shows a profile of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.550, effectively distancing itself from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.074). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' that are more common in its environment. A low value in this indicator suggests a focus on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into minimal publishable units. This practice strengthens the quality of the scientific evidence it generates and demonstrates a commitment to substance over volume.
