| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.093 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.349 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.050 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.743 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.364 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.543 | -0.016 |
Universidad Anahuac demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.361 that reflects a performance significantly stronger than the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over practices that could compromise research quality, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results indicate a mature and well-governed research culture. The main areas for strategic attention are a moderate dependency on external partners for research impact and a noticeable rate of redundant publications. Academically, the institution shows significant national leadership in key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Psychology (ranked 6th nationally), Arts and Humanities (10th), and the combined fields of Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (both 11th). This strong performance aligns with its mission to form "leaders of positive action"; however, the identified vulnerabilities could challenge this ethos by prioritizing publication volume or relying on external leadership. To fully align its scientific output with its mission, it is recommended that the institution focuses on fostering greater intellectual leadership and reinforcing publication ethics to ensure every contribution represents a substantive and positive development for society.
The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.093) is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.565), though both remain within a low-risk band. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight uptick should be reviewed to ensure it continues to reflect genuine collaboration rather than emerging signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted output, performing better than the already low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.149). This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. The absence of risk signals in this critical area suggests a strong integrity culture and responsible supervision, aligning with a national context that also maintains good standards.
The institution exhibits a remarkably low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -1.349), creating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.169). This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than through internal 'echo chambers'. By avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation, the institution ensures its work undergoes sufficient external scrutiny, reinforcing the credibility of its research contributions.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.050) is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average (Z-score: -0.070). This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size. While any publication in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards poses a reputational risk, the current rate does not suggest a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels.
With a Z-score of -0.743, the institution displays a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored publications, a rate significantly lower than the national average (Z-score: -0.127). This suggests that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data indicates a healthy culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices such as 'honorary' authorship, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency.
The institution shows a medium-level gap between its overall impact and the impact of its leader-authored research (Z-score: 0.364), but it demonstrates differentiated management by moderating this risk more effectively than the national average (Z-score: 0.479). This suggests that while some dependency on external partners for impact exists, the institution contains this sustainability risk better than its peers. The lower-than-average score indicates a growing internal capacity for intellectual leadership, reducing the risk that its scientific prestige is primarily dependent and exogenous rather than structural.
The institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is exceptionally low even when compared to the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.701). This low-profile consistency points to a healthy research environment where the balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The lack of extreme individual publication volumes reinforces a culture that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over purely metric-driven output, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risks of academic endogamy, with a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268). This practice stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk dynamic prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 1.054). This commitment to independent external peer review ensures that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, which enhances global visibility and avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution would act as both judge and party.
A moderate deviation is noted in the rate of redundant output, where the institution's Z-score of 0.543 indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.016). This value alerts to a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing'. This dynamic, which can distort the available scientific evidence, warrants a review of publication guidelines to ensure that contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.
