Management and Science University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Management and Science University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall risk score of 1.204 reflecting a combination of exceptional governance in certain areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates outstanding control over authorship practices and academic endogamy, with very low risk in the rates of hyperprolific authors and output in institutional journals. These strengths are complemented by a prudent management of self-citation and collaborative impact. However, these positive aspects are severely undermined by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and, most notably, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest systemic issues in quality control and publication channel selection. Thematically, the university showcases national leadership in key areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top national performers in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Mathematics. These achievements are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks, as a high volume of retractions and publications in predatory journals fundamentally contradicts the institutional mission to uphold "ethical values," "integrity," and "academic excellence." To safeguard its reputation and ensure its research-driven mission is sustainable, the university must leverage its foundational strengths to urgently address these critical weaknesses through a comprehensive review of its research quality assurance and dissemination policies.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.200 is notably higher than the national average of 0.097. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, this score indicates that the institution is more exposed to this risk factor than its national peers. This heightened rate warrants attention, as disproportionately high levels of multiple affiliations can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A review of affiliation policies is advisable to ensure that all declared affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.169, the institution shows a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 0.676. This suggests the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying a vulnerability present in the system. A rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this pattern points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.335, positioning it in a low-risk category while the national average sits at a medium-risk level of 0.001. This performance indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate confirms that it avoids the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is healthily validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 4.924 is a critical alert, indicating a significant risk level that far surpasses the country's medium-risk average of 1.552. This severe discrepancy suggests the university is amplifying a national vulnerability to an alarming degree. A high proportion of publications in such venues constitutes a major red flag regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This 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.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.975, the institution exhibits a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.880. This favorable comparison indicates that the university maintains robust oversight of authorship practices. The data suggests a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in the attribution of scientific credit.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.325 reflects a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national average of -0.166. This indicates a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem where scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. The balanced relationship between the impact of its overall output and the work it leads intellectually suggests that the university's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity, demonstrating structural strength rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.121. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the university fosters a culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity, effectively preventing imbalances that could lead to coercive authorship or other practices that compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively insulates itself from the national trend, where the country's average of 1.103 indicates a medium risk. This performance highlights a clear commitment to external validation and global standards. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that could bypass standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.961 places it in a medium-risk category, but this value indicates a high exposure to this risk, as it is significantly greater than the national average of 0.143. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. Such a high value warns of the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants a review of institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.