| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.836 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.975 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.439 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.237 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.162 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.183 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.381, indicating a performance superior to the national average. This solid foundation is built upon significant strengths in key areas, including an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and a healthy approach to authorship practices. These strengths suggest a culture that values external validation and genuine intellectual leadership. This performance underpins the institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its Top 10 national ranking in Business, Management and Accounting, alongside notable placements in Social Sciences and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, this positive outlook is tempered by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output. These vulnerabilities could undermine the university's mission to foster "highly competent and supportive professionals" and create genuine "currents of thought," as they risk prioritizing publication volume over substantive, high-quality contributions. To fully align its practices with its mission of integral formation and social leadership, the institution is encouraged to implement targeted strategies that enhance due diligence in publication channel selection and promote research of greater substance over fragmentation.
The institution shows a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.836, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.565. This indicates that the university manages its affiliation practices with greater control than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this disciplined approach helps prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that collaborative credit is assigned with clarity and integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution's rate of retractions is statistically normal and in close alignment with the national average of -0.149. This level does not suggest a systemic issue. Retractions are complex events, and this score reflects a healthy balance where the institution likely engages in the responsible correction of unintentional errors without showing signs of recurring malpractice or systemic failures in its pre-publication quality control mechanisms.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.975 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.169. This outstanding result indicates that the institution actively avoids the risk of becoming a scientific 'echo chamber.' By relying on external validation rather than internal dynamics, the university ensures its academic influence is a reflection of global community recognition, effectively preventing the endogamous inflation of its impact and reinforcing the credibility of its research lines.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed, with the institution's Z-score at 0.439, contrasting with the country's low-risk average of -0.070. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publications that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.237, which is even lower than the already low-risk national average of -0.127. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is aligned with the national standard and points to a healthy culture of authorship. This suggests that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and maintain individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
The university shows a remarkable preventive isolation from a vulnerability present at the national level. Its Z-score of -1.162 is in the very low-risk category, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.479. This result signals that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built upon strong, structural internal capacity. It demonstrates that the university's excellence metrics are a product of genuine intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution maintains a low-profile consistency, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.701. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the university's environment does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing meaningful intellectual contributions over inflated publication metrics.
The institution effectively isolates itself from a common risk in its environment, posting a very low Z-score of -0.268 against a medium-risk national average of 1.054. This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes on the global stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.183, which indicates a medium risk level compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.016. This suggests a greater sensitivity to practices that artificially inflate productivity. This indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
