Universidad Autonoma de Nayarit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.427. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These results indicate a solid foundation of ethical research practices and transparent operational policies. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium-risk level in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a similar risk level in the Gap between the impact of total output and that of internally-led output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Environmental Science, where it holds competitive national rankings. These achievements align with its mission to generate and disseminate knowledge with a "high sense of social responsibility." Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly publishing in potentially predatory journals, could undermine this commitment to quality and social value. Similarly, a dependency on external leadership for impact challenges the goal of developing a sustainable and autonomous research capacity. To fully honor its mission of excellence and democratic development, it is recommended that the institution focuses on strengthening researcher literacy in selecting high-quality publication venues and implementing strategies to foster and elevate the impact of its internally-led research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.203, which is significantly below the national average of -0.565. This demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy that aligns with the national standard for integrity. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score indicates the absence of such risk signals, reflecting a commendable commitment to accurately representing institutional and researcher contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution's rate of retracted output is minimal and more controlled than the national average of -0.149. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, a low rate like this primarily indicates that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place are robust and effective, systemically preventing failures in methodological rigor or research integrity prior to publication.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a healthy, low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.193), which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.169). This suggests strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to mitigate the systemic risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that may be present elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate confirms its work is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the endogamous inflation of its academic influence and ensuring its impact is based on global recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A point of attention arises in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, where the institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.214, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.070. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling 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 -0.969, the institution shows a significantly lower rate of hyper-authored output compared to the national average of -0.127. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. This low rate is a positive signal that helps distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby ensuring that individual accountability and transparency in research contributions are maintained.

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

The institution's gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led output (Z-score: 0.447) is at a medium-risk level, which is nearly identical to the national average (Z-score: 0.479). This alignment reflects a systemic pattern likely shared across the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term research autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, with an extremely low Z-score of -1.413, well below the already low national average of -0.701. This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard and indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the institutional culture does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, ensuring that authorship reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268), a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 1.054). This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not over-relying on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This approach avoids academic endogamy and strengthens the credibility of its research by preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The rate of redundant output is exceptionally low (Z-score: -1.186), placing the institution in a position of very low risk that is far more controlled than the national average of -0.016. This lack of risk signals aligns with the national standard and indicates a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies over artificially inflating productivity, thereby contributing positively to the integrity of the scientific record and avoiding an overburdening of the peer-review system.