| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.671 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.578 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.931 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.652 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.318 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.172 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.137 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.177 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.103 | 0.074 |
The Universidad Politécnica Salesiana presents a mixed scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 1.768 that reflects both significant strengths in authorship practices and critical vulnerabilities in its publication strategy. The institution demonstrates commendable control in areas such as hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and dependency on external collaborations for impact, indicating a healthy culture of individual accountability and strong internal research leadership. However, these strengths are overshadowed by significant risks related to a high rate of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, alongside medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and the use of in-house journals. These challenges directly contradict the institutional mission to foster "human and academic excellence" and form "honest citizens," as they compromise the integrity and external validation of its research. The university's recognized leadership in thematic areas like Psychology (1st in Ecuador), Earth and Planetary Sciences (2nd), and Computer Science (4th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of academic excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is imperative to address these integrity gaps, ensuring that its notable research capacity translates into a robust, transparent, and globally recognized scientific contribution that genuinely supports sustainable development.
The institution demonstrates effective management of its affiliation policies, with a Z-score of -0.671 that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.920. This suggests the presence of robust internal controls that successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's prudent profile indicates a clear and well-regulated approach, preventing the strategic use of affiliations to artificially boost institutional credit and ensuring transparency in its collaborative footprint.
The university's performance on this indicator is a critical concern, as it appears to amplify national vulnerabilities regarding publication quality. With a Z-score of 2.578, significantly higher than the country's 0.637, the data suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. A retraction rate this far above the average is a serious alert to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university exhibits a greater tendency toward institutional self-citation than its national peers, with a Z-score of 1.931 compared to the country's 1.096. This high exposure suggests the institution is more prone to risks of scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers,' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a disproportionately high rate warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, a dynamic where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal citation practices rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
In a national context already facing critical challenges, the institution leads the risk metrics for publishing in discontinued journals. Its Z-score of 4.652, which surpasses the nation's already high score of 3.894, constitutes a global red flag regarding its due diligence in selecting publication channels. This indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation, a profile that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard. Its Z-score of -1.318, compared to the country's -0.241, points to healthy and transparent authorship practices. This low-profile consistency suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, thereby preserving individual accountability and the integrity of the research record.
The university showcases strong internal research capacity, effectively mitigating the national trend of relying on external partners for impact. Its Z-score of -0.172, in stark contrast to the country's 0.454, indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, driven by projects where it exercises intellectual leadership. This institutional resilience demonstrates that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities, ensuring long-term scientific autonomy and sustainability.
The institution's authorship patterns are consistent with a low-risk environment, showing no evidence of hyperprolificacy. The Z-score of -1.137, well below the country's score of -0.431, reflects a balanced and healthy distribution of academic productivity. This absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and discourages problematic practices such as coercive or honorary authorship, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific contributions.
The institution displays an unusually high rate of publication in its own journals, a practice that is not common at the national level. Its Z-score of 2.177, compared to the country's very low -0.153, constitutes a monitoring alert that requires a review of its causes. This excessive dependence on in-house journals creates a potential conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This pattern warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and serving as an internal 'fast track' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution's rate of redundant output aligns closely with the national average, indicating that its practices are reflective of a systemic pattern within the country's research ecosystem. With a Z-score of 0.103, nearly identical to the country's 0.074, the risk level mirrors shared practices or regulatory incentives that may inadvertently encourage publication fragmentation. This signals a moderate risk of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics, a dynamic that can distort the scientific evidence base and should be carefully monitored.
