| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.717 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.039 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.227 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.750 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.609 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Juarez del Estado de Durango demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.528 that positions it favorably against the national backdrop. The institution's primary strength lies in its consistent outperformance of country averages across nearly all indicators, particularly in areas of quality control and ethical practices such as Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, where risks are virtually non-existent. The only area requiring moderate attention is Institutional Self-Citation, though even here the university shows more restraint than its national peers. This strong foundation of integrity directly supports the institution's recognized thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas like Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. This performance is in direct alignment with its mission to form "responsible people" with "ethical sense," as the low-risk profile validates its commitment to scientific competence and excellence. To further this mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its outstanding integrity record as a hallmark of quality while continuing to monitor self-citation patterns to ensure its research impact is both locally relevant and globally recognized.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.717, positioning it within a low-risk category and notably below the national average of -0.565. This indicates that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this prudent profile suggests the institution effectively avoids any signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, ensuring that collaborative work is transparent and accurately represented.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, contrasting with the country's low-risk score of -0.149. This demonstrates a consistent and effective approach to research quality. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning systemically, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate might imply and reflecting a mature culture of scientific integrity.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.039, placing it in the medium-risk category, which is also the case for the country average of 0.169. However, the institution's significantly lower score reveals a differentiated management approach that successfully moderates a risk that appears more common nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping this rate well below the national trend, the university mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates a commitment to ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community, not just by internal dynamics.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.227, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.070. This prudent profile indicates that the university's researchers exercise greater rigor than their national counterparts in selecting publication venues. A low proportion of output in such journals is a critical sign of due diligence. It demonstrates that the institution is effectively avoiding the severe reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, suggesting a high degree of information literacy that prevents the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.750, the institution shows a significantly more controlled approach to authorship than the country as a whole, which has a score of -0.127. Both are in a low-risk band, but the university's profile is exceptionally prudent. This low rate indicates that, outside of disciplines where massive collaboration is standard, the institution successfully prevents author list inflation. This reinforces a culture of individual accountability and transparency, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the value of scientific contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.609 (low risk), which marks a significant and positive divergence from the national average of 0.479 (medium risk). This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience against a systemic national risk. A negative score suggests that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and self-sufficient. This counters the national trend where scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners, signaling that the university's excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific standing is both structural and sustainable.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, far below the national average of -0.701. This near-total absence of risk signals indicates a healthy and balanced research environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's profile effectively avoids the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby promoting a culture where the quality and integrity of the scientific record are prioritized over sheer quantitative output.
A key strength is the institution's very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 1.054. This shows a clear preventive isolation from a potentially problematic national dynamic. By not depending on its own journals, the university avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This commitment to external, independent peer review is fundamental for achieving global visibility and ensuring that its research is validated through standard competitive channels, rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 places it in the very low-risk category, indicating a much stronger performance than the national average of -0.016. This consistency in producing substantial research is a hallmark of high-quality scientific practice. The extremely low rate of redundant output confirms that the university's researchers are focused on generating significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units.' This approach respects the scientific review system and ensures the integrity of the available evidence base.
