| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.256 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.004 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.560 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.024 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.449 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.127 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.831 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Juarez Autonoma de Tabasco demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.286 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, redundant publications, and output in its own journals, reflecting a solid culture of transparency and commitment to external validation. The main area for strategic attention is a medium-risk signal in the publication of research in discontinued journals, which presents a moderate vulnerability. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific leadership is most prominent in thematic areas such as Veterinary, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, and Mathematics. This strong research performance aligns with its mission to foster the "solid and comprehensive training of professionals" with "ethics and responsibility." However, the identified risk in publication channel selection could undermine this mission by potentially devaluing research output and misallocating resources, contradicting the goal of contributing effectively to societal transformation. A focused effort to enhance researcher literacy on journal quality and predatory publishing will be crucial to close this gap, thereby reinforcing the institution's commitment to excellence and ensuring its scientific contributions achieve their maximum impact and integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.256, a value indicating a very low risk that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.565. This demonstrates a commendable level of transparency and precision in how researcher affiliations are declared. The absence of risk signals, which is even more pronounced than the national standard, suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are clear and well-defined. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's extremely low rate confirms that its affiliations are highly unlikely to be part of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a strong commitment to ethical representation.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution shows a near-zero incidence of retracted publications, positioning it favorably against the already low-risk national score of -0.149. This alignment with the national standard in maintaining a clean record points to effective pre-publication quality control. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest error correction, but a consistently low rate like this is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply, thus safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.004, maintaining a low-risk profile in a national context that shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score of 0.169). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This prudent approach indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader external community, not just inflated by internal dynamics, ensuring its impact is both genuine and globally recognized.
The institution's Z-score of 0.560 represents a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.070. This finding suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of work in such journals indicates that a significant part of the scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.024, the institution exhibits a prudent profile, managing its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.127), even though both are within a low-risk range. This exceptionally low score indicates that the university's research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. By maintaining tight control over authorship, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorships that can dilute the meaning of scientific contribution.
The institution shows strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.449, which signifies a low and healthy dependency on external collaborations for impact, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.479. This indicates that the university is successfully mitigating a systemic risk where prestige can become overly reliant on external partners. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a sign of a mature research ecosystem where excellence is generated from within, not just imported through strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.127 is within the low-risk category, similar to the national score of -0.701. However, the university's score is slightly higher than the country's average, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This minor signal suggests a need for proactive monitoring to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and to verify that no underlying dynamics, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, are beginning to emerge.
The institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) that starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national trend (Z-score of 1.054). This indicates the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment and actively avoids over-reliance on its own journals. This practice is a significant strength, as it mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy where production might bypass independent external peer review. By favoring external channels, the institution enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its commitment to objective quality standards.
With a Z-score of -0.831, the institution displays an exceptionally low rate of redundant output, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.016. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy and ethical publication culture. It indicates that the university's researchers prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity metrics. This robust performance suggests a strong institutional stance against practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
