| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.148 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.152 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.469 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.962 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.694 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.074 |
The Universidad Estatal Peninsula de Santa Elena demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in its high score of 0.989. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in maintaining low rates of retracted output, hyper-prolific authorship, redundant publications, and dependency on institutional journals, often outperforming national averages. These areas suggest a solid foundation of internal quality control and a culture that values substantive research. However, this strong profile is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in three key areas: a high rate of institutional self-citation, an elevated rate of multiple affiliations, and a particularly alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals. Thematically, the institution shows notable academic positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, especially in Mathematics (ranked 6th in Ecuador), as well as in Computer Science and Social Sciences. These risk indicators, especially the reliance on low-quality publication channels, directly challenge the institution's mission to provide "high academic quality" and uphold "public ethics." To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university should leverage its foundational strengths to implement targeted interventions aimed at improving author affiliation transparency, fostering broader external collaboration, and, most urgently, enhancing due diligence in the selection of publication venues.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.148 in this indicator, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.920. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context, the university shows a greater exposure to this particular risk. This suggests a higher-than-average tendency toward practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive contributions and transparent collaborations rather than merely metric-driven strategies.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates an excellent record in this area, especially when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.637. This positive result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics concerning post-publication corrections observed elsewhere in the country. This very low rate suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms and pre-publication supervision are effective and robust, reflecting a strong culture of methodological rigor and scientific responsibility that successfully prevents systemic errors or malpractice.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 2.152, significantly exceeding the national average of 1.096. This positions the university with high exposure to the risks associated with this practice, even within a national context already showing medium-level signals. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate can signal the formation of concerning scientific 'echo chambers' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
This indicator represents a critical alert for the institution, with a Z-score of 5.469 that is substantially higher than the already significant national average of 3.894. This finding is a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but leads this high-risk practice within a nationally compromised environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a severe reputational risk, suggesting a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, pointing to an urgent need for information literacy and policy intervention to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution displays a prudent profile regarding authorship, with a Z-score of -0.962, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.241. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This controlled rate suggests a healthy distinction between necessary massive collaboration, typical of 'Big Science', and the potential for author list inflation. By maintaining a low incidence of hyper-authorship, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.694, which contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.454. This suggests that while there may be a national trend of dependency on external partners for impact, the institution's control mechanisms mitigate this risk effectively. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This is a sign of sustainable, structural strength, reflecting a genuine internal capacity to produce high-impact research.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.431. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy research environment that aligns with national standards for responsible productivity. The data suggests that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby maintaining a proper balance between quantity and quality and protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's already very low average of -0.153. This exemplary performance highlights a strong commitment to seeking external, independent validation for its research. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is subjected to standard competitive peer review and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution effectively isolates itself from the risks of redundant publication, showing a very low Z-score of -1.186 compared to a medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the national tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'. This strong negative signal indicates a research culture that values the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and respecting the resources of the peer review system.
