| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.141 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.771 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.078 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.025 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.609 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.700 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.416 | 0.074 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.307, Universidad San Francisco de Quito demonstrates a robust and commendable foundation in scientific practices, particularly in its rigorous selection of publication venues and its exceptionally low rate of retracted output. These strengths provide a solid base for its prominent leadership in key research fields, as evidenced by its top national rankings in areas such as Engineering, Medicine, and Physics and Astronomy according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile of excellence is contrasted by significant alerts related to authorship and collaboration patterns, including hyper-authorship and a dependency on external partners for impact. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the institution's mission to research and serve the community with integrity. To fully align its operational practices with its stated values, it is recommended that the university initiate a strategic review of its authorship and collaboration policies, thereby ensuring its impressive scientific output is unequivocally supported by transparent and sustainable internal capacities.
The institution's Z-score of 1.141 is notably higher than the national average of 0.920. This indicates that even within a national context where multiple affiliations are a common practice, the university shows a greater propensity for this behavior. This high exposure suggests a heightened vulnerability to practices that, while often legitimate, can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The university should therefore ensure that its collaboration policies promote genuine partnership rather than merely accumulating affiliations, maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.637, which indicates a moderate level of risk. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university's internal quality controls effectively shield it from the risk dynamics present in its environment. This extremely low rate of retractions is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that its supervision and methodological rigor are succeeding in preventing the kinds of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to reputational damage, thereby upholding a standard of responsible science.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.771, which is lower than the national average of 1.096. This reflects a differentiated management approach; while the practice of self-citation is present at both levels, the university moderates this tendency more effectively than its national peers. This controlled rate reduces the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. By relying less on internal validation, the institution demonstrates a greater openness to external scrutiny and a stronger integration with the global scientific community, ensuring its academic influence is validated externally.
The university's Z-score of -0.078 contrasts sharply with the country's critical score of 3.894. This result shows that the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully building a firewall against a widespread and high-risk national practice. While the national environment shows a significant vulnerability to publishing in channels that fail to meet international standards, the university's low rate indicates exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination venues. This protects its research from reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices and demonstrates a mature information literacy culture among its academic community.
A severe discrepancy is observed in this indicator, with the institution registering a Z-score of 3.025 against a low national average of -0.241. This atypical risk activity, which is an absolute outlier in the national context, requires a deep integrity assessment. The significant rate of publications with extensive author lists raises an urgent need to distinguish between legitimate 'Big Science' collaborations and potential author list inflation. This pattern may signal systemic issues such as 'honorary' or political authorship, which dilute individual accountability and transparency, and warrants an immediate qualitative review of authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 1.609 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.454, indicating a high exposure to dependency risks. This wide gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is high, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This pattern points to a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of its own consolidated capacity or its positioning in collaborations led by external partners.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.700 compared to the country's score of -0.431. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme individual productivity than its peers. The presence of hyperprolific authors, a phenomenon largely absent at the national level, warrants a review of its causes. This signal alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and could point to underlying risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.153. This total operational silence in a low-risk environment is exemplary. It indicates a firm commitment to external validation and global visibility, as the institution avoids any potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy that can arise from over-reliance on in-house journals. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent, competitive peer review, strengthening its credibility and international standing.
With a Z-score of 0.416, the institution shows a higher risk exposure compared to the national average of 0.074. Although both operate within a context of moderate risk, the university is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior. This heightened value warns of a greater tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where coherent studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
