| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.611 | 0.920 |
|
Retracted Output
|
9.631 | 0.637 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.568 | 1.096 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.977 | 3.894 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.144 | -0.241 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.835 | 0.454 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.431 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.923 | 0.074 |
The Universidad Tecnica Estatal de Quevedo presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a high overall risk score (Z-score: 4.365) that demands strategic attention. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths and robust governance in specific areas, notably maintaining very low-risk levels in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating solid authorship and editorial policies. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities, particularly a significant rate of retracted output and a high volume of publications in discontinued journals. These issues, coupled with medium-risk exposure in self-citation and redundant output, directly challenge the university's mission to foster "excellence" and operate under "ethical principles and values." While the institution has established a notable research presence in areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the identified integrity risks could undermine the credibility and long-term impact of its contributions. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its areas of strong governance as a model to develop targeted interventions aimed at reinforcing quality control, promoting responsible publication choices, and ensuring the structural integrity of its scientific record.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.611, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.920. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate indicates a controlled and transparent approach, avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This conservative profile reinforces the clarity and integrity of its institutional collaborations.
With a Z-score of 9.631, the institution's rate of retractions is critically higher than the national average of 0.637. This result indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is significantly amplifying it. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a severe alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This suggests a profound vulnerability 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 protect its scientific reputation and realign with its stated ethical principles.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.568, moderately exceeding the national average of 1.096. This indicates a higher exposure to the risks associated with this practice compared to its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to build upon existing research, this elevated rate can signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be partially oversized by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 7.977 is exceptionally high, starkly surpassing the already significant national average of 3.894. This finding is a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in risk metrics within a country already compromised in this area. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.144, well below the national average of -0.241, the institution demonstrates exemplary control in this area. This absence of risk signals is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard, indicating robust and well-enforced authorship policies. In fields where extensive author lists are not the norm, a low rate is a positive sign. It confirms that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby ensuring that author lists accurately reflect individual contributions and accountability.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.835 in this indicator, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.454. This suggests that the university is more exposed than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.431, demonstrating a clear absence of risk in this area. This low-profile consistency aligns with the national standard, indicating effective oversight of individual research productivity. Extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this very low score is a positive indicator that the university fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the low national average of -0.153. This state of total operational silence indicates that the university does not rely on its own journals for publishing its research. While in-house journals can be valuable, this independence from them is a sign of strength, as it avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing its potential for global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.923 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.074, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk factor. This suggests that the university's researchers are more prone than their national counterparts to practices that may artificially inflate productivity. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units. This elevated value serves as an alert that such practices may be distorting the scientific record and overburdening the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
