| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.618 | 0.291 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | 0.351 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.054 | -0.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.127 | 1.327 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.905 | -0.757 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.004 | 1.393 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 2.585 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.798 | -0.039 |
The Universidad de Ciencias Medicas de La Habana demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.171 that positions it favorably against the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exemplary authorship and publication practices, showing exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals—areas where it significantly outperforms national trends. These indicators reflect a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation over volume. The main vulnerability identified is a medium-risk gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for scientific prestige. This performance is contextualized by its clear leadership within Cuba, holding the #1 national rank in key areas such as Dentistry, Medicine, and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This strong integrity framework is fundamental to its mission of integrally training health professionals and producing reliable knowledge. However, the identified dependency on external leadership for impact could challenge the long-term sustainability of its goal to "produce knowledge and technologies and innovations" autonomously. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to foster internal research leadership, thereby transforming its collaborative success into sovereign scientific excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.618, a low-risk value that contrasts with the national average of 0.291. This difference suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed at the country level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates that it effectively avoids strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that institutional credit is attributed accurately and transparently, in contrast to broader national patterns.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.070, while the national average stands at 0.351. Although both are in the medium-risk category, the university's significantly lower score points to differentiated management of publication quality. This suggests that while not entirely immune to the issues that lead to retractions, its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are more effective than those of its national peers. Retractions can signal responsible supervision when correcting honest errors, but a systemic pattern is a concern. The university's ability to moderate this risk indicates a more robust integrity culture that is better equipped to prevent the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen more broadly in its environment.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.054, a low-risk value that is in close alignment with the national average of -0.028. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of institutional self-citation is as expected for its context. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and demonstrates the continuity of established research lines. The university’s score confirms this healthy pattern, indicating that its work is validated by the broader scientific community and is not at risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact through internal dynamics.
The institution has a Z-score of 0.127, which, despite being a medium-risk signal, is substantially lower than the national average of 1.327. This notable difference highlights a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is far more common at the national level. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational damage by associating it with predatory or low-quality practices. The university's ability to contain this behavior suggests a greater due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, protecting its resources and scientific reputation more effectively than its peers.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.905, a low-risk value that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.757. This demonstrates a prudent profile in authorship practices, suggesting that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute individual accountability. The university's low score is a positive signal of transparency, effectively distinguishing its legitimate collaborations from potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.004, a medium-risk value that signals high exposure as it is notably greater than the national average of 1.393. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is significantly dependent on external partners and may not be fully structural. A high value warns that its excellent global impact metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from its own internal capacity for intellectual leadership. This poses a sustainability risk, inviting a deep reflection on whether the university is building its own long-term research excellence or primarily benefiting from an exogenous one.
The institution's Z-score is -1.413, a value indicating a complete absence of risk that is identical to the national average. This perfect integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's clean record here is a strong testament to a balanced and healthy research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk signal that stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 2.585. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. While in-house journals can be useful, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy. The university's minimal reliance on such channels shows a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its research is validated by global standards and avoids the use of internal 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.798, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the country's low-risk average of -0.039. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard, is a strong positive indicator. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to artificially inflate output. The university's near-zero incidence of this behavior demonstrates a commitment to publishing complete, significant contributions to knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence.
