| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.603 | 1.603 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.343 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.275 | -1.275 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.473 | -0.473 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.371 | 2.371 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.842 | 2.842 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.476 | -0.476 |
The Universidad Mayor de San Andres presents a scientific integrity profile that is perfectly aligned with the Bolivian national context, achieving an overall score of -0.032 that indicates performance consistent with the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, demonstrating a solid foundation in core research ethics. However, significant vulnerabilities are evident in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, alongside medium-level risks in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research. These challenges coincide with the university's clear leadership position within Bolivia, as confirmed by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks first nationally in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. While this thematic excellence is commendable, the identified risks—particularly those suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for impact and potential authorship inflation—could undermine the mission to train "highly qualified professionals" with "critical thinking" and to integrate effectively with the "international scientific and academic community." To fully realize its mission of social responsibility and quality-of-life improvement, it is recommended that the university addresses these systemic vulnerabilities to ensure its operational practices authentically reflect its academic prestige and leadership role.
The institution's Z-score of 1.603 is identical to the national average for Bolivia (1.603), indicating that its medium-risk profile in this area is not an isolated phenomenon but rather reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. This suggests that the drivers for this behavior are likely shared practices or national-level policies. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a moderate, system-wide rate warrants a strategic review to ensure these practices are fostering genuine collaboration rather than being used as a mechanism for "affiliation shopping" or artificially inflating institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the university's performance is perfectly aligned with the national average (-0.343), demonstrating a low and statistically normal level of retracted publications for its context. This synchrony suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and post-publication correction mechanisms are functioning as expected within the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, and the current rate does not signal systemic failures in integrity but rather a responsible handling of scientific error correction consistent with its peers.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.275, a figure that mirrors the national average (-1.275) and points to a shared environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony is a significant strength, indicating that the university, like its national peers, avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By ensuring its work is validated through external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, the institution confirms that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community, preventing any artificial inflation of its impact.
The university's Z-score of -0.473 is identical to the country's average (-0.473), reflecting a very low and commendable rate of publication in discontinued journals. This perfect alignment demonstrates a shared national commitment to scientific quality and due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels. This practice effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory publishing and indicates a strong culture of information literacy that prevents the misallocation of research efforts to low-quality outlets.
A Z-score of 2.371 places the institution at a significant risk level, a critical issue that it shares with the entire national system, which has an identical score (2.371). This suggests the university is immersed in a standard crisis, a generalized and critical risk dynamic prevalent across the country. In fields outside of "Big Science," such extensive author lists can be a red flag for author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is urgent for the institution to analyze this pattern to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaborations and problematic "honorary" authorship practices that compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.842, which is the same as the national average (2.842), reveals a medium-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This indicates a systemic pattern where the university, much like the rest of the country, may be leveraging external partnerships to achieve high-impact results. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige could be dependent and exogenous rather than built on structural, internal capacity. This situation calls for a strategic reflection on how to foster more intellectual leadership in collaborations to ensure long-term scientific autonomy and growth.
With a Z-score of -1.413, identical to the national average (-1.413), the university demonstrates a very low risk of hyperprolific authorship. This perfect synchrony with a secure national environment is a positive indicator of a healthy research culture. It suggests a strong institutional and systemic balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution. This shared standard reinforces a commitment to the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of inflated productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is perfectly aligned with the country's average (-0.268), indicating a very low and appropriate level of publication in its own journals. This integrity synchrony highlights a shared national preference for seeking independent, external peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on internal channels, the university mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring its research is validated through competitive, global standards and enhancing its international visibility.
The university's Z-score of -0.476, identical to the national figure (-0.476), shows a very low risk of redundant publications. This alignment with a secure national environment demonstrates a strong and shared commitment to research integrity. It indicates that the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating publication counts by fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units—is not a prevalent issue. This focus on publishing coherent and significant new knowledge strengthens the scientific evidence base and shows respect for the academic review system.
