| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.054 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.176 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.204 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.031 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.554 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.684 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.054 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila presents a solid and balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.301. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining research autonomy and quality control, with exceptionally low-risk indicators in areas such as the 'Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership' and 'Rate of Output in Institutional Journals', where it outperforms the national context. This robust internal governance is complemented by a prudent management of affiliations and authorship. The primary areas for strategic attention are the moderate deviations observed in the 'Rate of Hyperprolific Authors' and the 'Rate of Redundant Output'. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these results are contextualized by the university's notable national leadership in key thematic areas, including top-5 rankings in Mexico for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, as well as top-10 positions in Energy and Environmental Science. This thematic excellence directly supports the institutional mission to provide "quality education" and "contribute to sustainability." However, the identified risks in publication practices, if unaddressed, could challenge this commitment to quality by prioritizing volume over substantive contribution. By proactively reviewing the dynamics behind hyperprolificacy and data fragmentation, the university can ensure its operational practices fully align with its mission, reinforcing its role as a benchmark for responsible and high-impact research in Mexico.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.054, while the national average is -0.565. This result demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard of low-risk behavior. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate suggests a highly transparent and stable approach to declaring institutional adscriptions. This low-profile consistency indicates that there are no signs of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution shows a more favorable position compared to the national average of -0.149. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its pre-publication processes with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes signal responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, a consistently low rate like this one points toward effective quality control mechanisms that systemically prevent the failures that often lead to retractions. This performance indicates a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing vulnerabilities before publication.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.176, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.169. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university maintains a low-risk profile in an environment where self-citation is a more common practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate indicates that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the country. This prevents the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' and avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than primarily by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score is -0.204, which is lower than the national average of -0.070. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university's researchers exercise more rigor than the national standard when selecting publication venues. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks and suggests a lack of due diligence. The university's lower-than-average rate demonstrates a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby safeguarding its resources and reputation from predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.031, significantly below the national average of -0.127. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a low rate outside these contexts is a positive sign. It suggests that the institution effectively discourages author list inflation and honorary authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.554, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.479. This result signals a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap often suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's negative gap indicates the opposite: its scientific excellence is structural and stems from strong internal capacity, demonstrating that its high-impact research is overwhelmingly led by its own researchers, which ensures long-term sustainability and academic sovereignty.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.684, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.701. This discrepancy suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme publication productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert warrants a review of the underlying causes to ensure that these publication rates do not point to imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, while the national average is 1.054. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, as the university avoids a practice that poses a medium risk at the national level. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the institution actively sidesteps the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy that arise when an entity acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing a culture of transparency.
With a Z-score of 1.054, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.016. This indicates that the university is more exposed to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its peers across the country. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
