| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.443 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
6.983 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.605 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.112 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.231 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.286 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.107 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.546 | 0.074 |
Universidad Técnica de Ambato presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a clear duality between areas of exceptional control and specific, critical vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 3.206, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk authorship and impact generation practices. However, this positive performance is overshadowed by significant alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, alongside medium-level risks in self-citation, multiple affiliations, and redundant publication. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's prominent national standing in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Medicine (ranked 3rd in Ecuador), Engineering (7th), and Business, Management and Accounting (11th). The identified integrity risks, especially those related to quality control and publication channel selection, directly challenge the core of the university's mission "to train competent leading professionals, with humanistic vision and critical thinking." A failure to ensure the rigor and validity of its research output undermines its commitment to excellence and its capacity to generate knowledge that genuinely "responds to the needs of the country." By strategically addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can protect its reputation, solidify its leadership in its strongest disciplines, and ensure its operational practices fully align with its aspirational mission of integrity and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.443, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.920. This suggests a differentiated and more controlled management of a risk that appears to be a common practice at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's more moderate rate indicates that its internal policies or academic culture may be effectively mitigating the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, showing more rigor than its national peers.
With a Z-score of 6.983, the institution shows a critical deviation from the national average of 0.637. This result indicates that the university is not only participating in but significantly amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. A retraction rate this far above the norm is a serious red flag, suggesting that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this score points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.605, below the country's average of 1.096. This demonstrates a more moderate approach to a risk that is common within the national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation. The institution's lower score suggests it is less prone to creating 'echo chambers' and relies more on external validation than its national counterparts, indicating a healthier balance in how its academic influence is constructed and recognized by the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 6.112 is alarmingly high and surpasses the already critical national average of 3.894. This positions the university as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. This indicator is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The 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 the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent, systemic need for information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.231, well below the national average of -0.241, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, indicating a healthy and consistent approach to authorship. The data suggests that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and avoid the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability. This reflects a commendable adherence to ethical authorship norms.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.286, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.454, which indicates a medium-level risk. This result signals a preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap can suggest that prestige is dependent on external partners. However, the university's very low score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structural and built upon its own intellectual leadership. This is a sign of significant scientific autonomy and robust internal capacity, a key strength for sustainable growth.
The university's Z-score of -1.107 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.431, confirming an absence of risk signals that is consistent with the national standard. This very low score indicates that the institution does not have authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This reflects a healthy academic environment that likely prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.153, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area. This excellent result shows a complete absence of risk signals. It indicates a strong commitment to seeking external, independent peer review for its research, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 1.546 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.074, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to practices of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' A high value here alerts to the possibility that studies are being divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific record and overburden the review system, signaling a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
