| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.080 | -0.282 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | 42.702 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.207 | 0.095 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.962 | 4.448 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
4.149 | 2.306 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.252 | 1.864 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.332 | 0.354 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.689 | -0.223 |
The Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 1.171 reflecting both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates an exemplary commitment to scientific rigor in several key areas, maintaining very low rates of institutional self-citation, redundant output, and publication in its own journals. These results indicate a solid foundation of ethical research practices. However, this positive performance is overshadowed by significant-risk indicators in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and a substantial Gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a clear leadership position within Honduras, ranking first in crucial thematic areas such as Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy, and Medicine. This leadership role makes addressing the identified integrity risks even more critical. The university's mission to foster "sustainable human development" through research is directly challenged by these vulnerabilities, as publishing in low-quality journals or relying on external leadership for impact undermines the goal of building genuine, lasting national capacity. To fully align its scientific output with its ambitious and socially responsible mission, the university should leverage its areas of strength to implement targeted strategies that enhance publication quality control, promote responsible authorship, and cultivate robust internal research leadership.
The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.080) is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.282), though both fall within a low-risk range. This minor divergence suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend compared to the national context could signal the beginning of practices like "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to monitor this trend to ensure that collaborative practices remain transparent and strategically aligned rather than escalating into a risk.
The institution demonstrates exceptional control over its publication quality, with a very low rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.315), in stark contrast to the critically high national average (Z-score: 42.702). This performance indicates that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively acting as a firewall against the systemic issues affecting the country. A rate significantly lower than the global average suggests that, unlike the national trend which may point to recurring malpractice, the institution's culture of integrity successfully prevents flawed research from being published, reflecting a responsible and rigorous scientific environment.
With a Z-score of -1.207, the institution shows a remarkably low rate of institutional self-citation, effectively isolating itself from the moderate-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.095). This result is highly positive, indicating that the university's research is not confined to an 'echo chamber' and avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation. Instead, it suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated through broad external scrutiny and recognition by the global scientific community, reflecting a healthy and outward-looking research culture.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is a critical concern, with a Z-score of 4.962 that not only represents a significant risk but also surpasses the already high national average (Z-score: 4.448). This positions the university as a leader in a high-risk practice within a compromised environment. This indicator constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of 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.
The rate of hyper-authored output at the institution is alarmingly high (Z-score: 4.149), significantly exceeding the country's already elevated average (Z-score: 2.306). This trend marks the university as a major contributor to this risk dynamic in a national context where it is already a problem. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to investigate and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution exhibits a significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of the output where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 3.252). This value is considerably higher than the national average (Z-score: 1.864), indicating that the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. This wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's rate of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: 0.332) is almost identical to the national average (Z-score: 0.354), placing it at a medium-risk level. This alignment suggests that the prevalence of authors with extremely high publication volumes reflects a systemic pattern, likely influenced by shared national evaluation policies or academic cultures. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary practice regarding its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is perfectly aligned with the national standard, both at a very low-risk level. This perfect synchrony indicates a shared commitment to scientific security and best practices. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves genuine global visibility.
The institution maintains a very low rate of redundant output (Z-score: -0.689), a signal of strong scientific practice that is consistent with the low-risk profile of the country (Z-score: -0.223). The absence of risk signals in this area demonstrates a commitment to producing substantive work over artificially inflating publication counts. This responsible approach avoids the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units, thereby ensuring that the institution's contributions to the scientific record are meaningful and do not overburden the peer-review system.
