| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.859 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.309 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.081 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.234 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.425 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.432 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.798 | 0.074 |
The Universidad Tecnica de Manabi demonstrates a robust and largely positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.503. The institution's primary strength lies in its effective governance and quality control, showing remarkable resilience and preventive isolation from several risk dynamics prevalent at the national level. Key areas of excellence include a near-total absence of redundant publications (salami slicing), minimal use of institutional journals for output, and responsible authorship practices. However, a critical vulnerability exists in the significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which, despite being lower than the national average, poses a substantial reputational risk. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in Arts and Humanities (ranked #1 in Ecuador), Social Sciences (#4), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (#12). This performance aligns with its mission to form "responsible, ethical, and supportive professionals" who generate and apply new knowledge. The identified risk in publication channels directly challenges this mission, as channeling research through low-quality venues undermines the ethical commitment to knowledge dissemination and social contribution. By leveraging its clear strengths in research integrity to address this specific vulnerability, the university can fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence and national development.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.859, which is slightly below the national average of 0.920. This indicates a pattern of differentiated management where the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers suggests more rigorous affiliation policies or a research culture less focused on such strategic positioning, reflecting a healthier approach to collaborative credit.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution shows a very low incidence of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.637. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national context suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting other institutions in the country.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.309, markedly lower than the national average of 1.096. This reflects a differentiated management approach, successfully moderating a risk that is more pronounced at the country level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national figure suggests a broader tendency towards 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. The institution’s lower score indicates that its research is subject to greater external scrutiny and is less at risk of its academic influence being oversized by internal dynamics, pointing to a more globally integrated research community.
The institution has a Z-score of 3.081, which constitutes a significant risk, although it is below the critical national average of 3.894. This situation represents an attenuated alert; while the university shows more control than its national context, it remains a global outlier in this critical indicator. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a severe alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-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 suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.234, far below the national average of -0.241, the institution demonstrates an exemplary absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship. This low-profile consistency aligns with the national standard of low risk but showcases an even more rigorous approach. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The university's very low score is a positive signal that its authorship practices are transparent and well-defined, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.425 is a strong positive signal, especially when compared to the national average of 0.454. This score demonstrates institutional resilience, as it avoids the dependency risk observed at the country level. A wide positive gap suggests that prestige is often reliant on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's negative score indicates the opposite: the impact of research led by its own authors is robust and not significantly lower than its overall collaborative impact. This reflects a sustainable model where scientific excellence is structural and generated from within, rather than being primarily dependent on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -0.432 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.431, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's alignment with the low-risk national norm suggests that its researchers' productivity levels are balanced and do not raise concerns about practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.153. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator. The data shows an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating a clear preference for competitive, international dissemination channels.
With a Z-score of -0.798, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.074, which indicates a medium risk. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's very low score is a powerful testament to a research culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer-review system.
