| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.447 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.399 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.386 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.101 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.690 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.056 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.526 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.947 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán (UADY) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.051 indicating a predominantly healthy research ecosystem. The institution's primary strengths lie in its structural independence and the quality of its authorship practices, reflected in very low-risk indicators for the impact gap (Ni_difference), hyperprolific authors, and redundant publications. These results suggest a solid foundation of internal capacity and a culture that prioritizes substantive contributions over sheer volume. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a moderate deviation from national norms in retracted output and high exposure to risks associated with institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, UADY's scientific leadership is most prominent in Veterinary (ranked 5th in Mexico), Chemistry (7th), Computer Science (7th), and Environmental Science (9th). To fully align with its mission of fostering "integral and humanistic formation" based on "universal values," it is crucial to address these integrity vulnerabilities. Practices that suggest academic endogamy or insufficient quality control could undermine the trust required for the university to act as a "transformer of its community" and could contradict its commitment to generating knowledge that contributes to "sustainable development." A proactive approach to reinforcing peer review and quality assurance mechanisms will ensure that its recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.447, compared to the national average of -0.565, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile in this area. This result suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows slightly more activity in this indicator than the national standard, though both remain within a controlled range. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor signal warrants review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” Continued monitoring is recommended to ensure this trend does not escalate.
The institution's Z-score of 0.399 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk Z-score of -0.149. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors leading to retractions than its national peers. A rate significantly higher than the average is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents of honest error correction, this value points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.386, while the national average is 0.169. Although both are within the medium-risk category, the institution's higher value indicates high exposure, making it more prone to this risk than its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning risk of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of -0.101, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.070, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its selection of publication venues. This result indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This diligence in selecting dissemination media protects the institution from severe reputational risks and reflects a strong information literacy culture among its researchers, preventing the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.690 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.127, highlighting a prudent profile in authorship practices. This demonstrates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively controlling for author list inflation. This low indicator suggests a healthy culture of accountability and transparency, where authorship is clearly defined and distinguished from 'honorary' or political practices, thereby reinforcing the integrity of individual contributions within collaborative projects.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -1.056, a very low-risk value that signals preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.479). This outstanding result indicates that the institution does not replicate the dependency on external partners for impact that is common in its environment. A low gap suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a mature and sustainable research capacity, where excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own scientific direction and innovation.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution's very low-risk level is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.701). This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals related to extreme individual publication volumes. The result suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This indicates a research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contributions over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.526 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.054, and while both are in the medium-risk category, this signals high exposure for the university. This heightened tendency to publish in-house raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice carries a substantial risk of academic endogamy, where scientific work may bypass independent external peer review. This not only limits global visibility but may also indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without the standard competitive validation required by the international scientific community.
The university's Z-score of -0.947 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency and performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.016. This absence of risk signals indicates a strong commitment to publishing complete and coherent studies. It suggests that the institution's research culture discourages the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This approach respects the scientific record and the peer review system by prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.
