| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.984 | 0.778 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | -0.276 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.546 | -0.194 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.337 | -0.270 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.550 | -0.189 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.804 | 1.728 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.141 | -1.258 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
12.756 | 7.318 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.784 | -0.445 |
The Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica presents a moderate overall risk profile (Z-score: 1.205), characterized by a duality of robust integrity practices and specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas that safeguard the quality and originality of its research, showing very low to non-existent risk signals for redundant output, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant alerts, most critically an extreme reliance on its own institutional journals, which poses a substantial threat to external validation and global visibility. This core vulnerability, coupled with a heightened exposure to multiple affiliations and a dependency on external collaborations for impact, requires strategic attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's leadership positions within Costa Rica, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks first in Chemistry and Mathematics and holds top-tier positions in Earth and Planetary Sciences and Arts and Humanities. To fully honor its mission of training professionals with a "critical and creative attitude," it is imperative to address the risk of academic endogamy, as bypassing global peer review contradicts the very essence of critical inquiry and social responsibility. By recalibrating its publication strategy to favor international, externally validated channels, the university can better leverage its thematic strengths, align its operational practices with its humanist mission, and solidify its role as a leader in regional scientific advancement.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.984, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.778. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution demonstrates a significantly greater propensity for this practice. This suggests a high exposure to the underlying drivers of multiple affiliations. While many of these affiliations are a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate here warrants a closer review to ensure that it does not signal strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the university's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution's performance is statistically indistinguishable from the national average of -0.276. This indicates a level of risk that is entirely normal and expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this alignment suggests that the university's quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms are functioning at the national standard. The current rate does not point to systemic failures or recurring malpractice but rather reflects a responsible and standard approach to the correction of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.546, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.194. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this institution's notably low rate is a positive signal of strong integration into the global scientific community, suggesting that its work is being validated by external scrutiny rather than within an insular 'echo chamber.' This practice effectively avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, reinforcing the genuine recognition of its academic influence.
The university shows an exemplary record in this area, with a Z-score of -0.337, reflecting a virtually non-existent risk, which is even more robust than the country's already low-risk average of -0.270. This performance demonstrates a consistent and effective due diligence process in selecting publication venues. The near-total absence of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is a critical strength, protecting the institution from severe reputational risks and confirming a high level of information literacy among its researchers, thereby preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution maintains a more prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship than the national standard (-0.189). This lower incidence suggests that the university's research culture effectively manages authorship practices with greater rigor than its peers. This is a positive indicator of transparency and accountability, signaling that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thus preserving the integrity of individual contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 1.804 is slightly higher than the national average of 1.728, indicating a high exposure to impact dependency, a pattern that is systemic across the country. This wide positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is significantly reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This dynamic presents a sustainability risk, as it raises questions about whether its high-impact metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships. It invites a crucial strategic reflection on how to build more structural, endogenous research excellence to ensure its long-term scientific autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.141 signifies a very low risk, though it is slightly higher than the country's near-zero average of -1.258. In an environment that is largely inert to this risk, the university's score represents a minimal, residual signal. This is not an alert but rather a statistical observation that the institution is the first to show any, albeit negligible, activity in this area. The data confirms a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme publication volumes that can challenge the integrity of the scientific record through practices like coercive authorship or superficial contributions.
This indicator represents a global red flag for the institution. Its Z-score of 12.756 is exceptionally high, dramatically exceeding the country's already critical average of 7.318. This result shows that the university is a primary driver of a high-risk practice within the national system. Such an extreme dependence on its own journals creates a severe conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This pattern warns of systemic academic endogamy, where a significant portion of scientific output may be bypassing independent external peer review. This practice limits global visibility, undermines credibility, and suggests the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity metrics without standard competitive validation, requiring urgent strategic intervention.
The university demonstrates an outstandingly low risk of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.784, which is significantly better than the country's low-risk average of -0.445. This absence of risk signals is a testament to a strong institutional culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over artificial productivity inflation. This performance indicates that researchers are focused on publishing coherent, meaningful studies rather than fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment not only strengthens the integrity of the scientific evidence produced but also shows respect for the academic review system.
