| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.962 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.027 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.953 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.332 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.076 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.945 | 0.074 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.844, the Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo demonstrates a robust foundation in scientific practices, characterized by significant strengths in authorship ethics and a commitment to external validation. The institution exhibits exemplary performance with very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, it shows notable resilience by maintaining low rates of Retracted Output and Institutional Self-Citation, outperforming a national context where these risks are more pronounced. However, a critical vulnerability emerges in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which stands at a significant level, even surpassing the high national average. This, coupled with a high exposure to Redundant Output, presents a direct challenge to the university's mission to "disseminate knowledge" with "relevance" and contribute to a "better society." These practices risk undermining the impact of its core thematic strengths, where SCImago Institutions Rankings data show the university holds a leadership position as #1 in Ecuador for Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and top-five rankings in Environmental Science and Arts and Humanities. To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic vision and academic excellence, it is recommended that the institution urgently implements enhanced training and stricter policies regarding the selection of publication venues and authorship contribution standards.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.962, which is closely aligned with the national average of 0.920. This proximity suggests that the university's approach to multiple affiliations reflects a systemic pattern common within the country's research ecosystem. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the shared medium-risk level indicates that these practices might be influenced by national policies or common strategies aimed at inflating institutional credit, rather than being an isolated institutional dynamic.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.637. This indicates a strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the wider environment. A low rate of retractions suggests that the university's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are effective. This performance is a positive sign of a responsible integrity culture, where methodological rigor is prioritized and potential errors are addressed proactively.
The institution's Z-score of -0.027 is substantially lower than the national average of 1.096, showcasing effective institutional resilience against a national trend. This low rate indicates that the university successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on global recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 4.953 is critically high and surpasses the already significant national average of 3.894, raising a global red flag. This situation indicates that the institution not only participates in but also amplifies a national vulnerability concerning the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of scientific output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert. It suggests a systemic failure in due diligence, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.332 is very low, positioning it favorably against the national Z-score of -0.241. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a national context that is also low-risk. This positive result suggests that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and inappropriate author list inflation.
With a Z-score of 0.076, the institution shows a much smaller impact gap than the national average of 0.454. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more common at the national level. A small gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a sign of sustainable and structural excellence, indicating that the university's impact is a direct result of its own research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, well below the national Z-score of -0.431. This finding points to a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in harmony with the national standard. This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, suggesting that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is lower than the already minimal national average of -0.153, indicating a total operational silence on this indicator. This exemplary performance demonstrates a robust commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its research seeks validation and visibility within the global scientific community rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.945 indicates a high exposure to this risk, as it is significantly greater than the national average of 0.074. This suggests the university is more prone to alert signals for redundant publications than its peers. A high value warns that practices like 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—may be occurring. This dynamic prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and warrants a review of institutional incentives for publication.
