National College of Business Administration and Economics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National College of Business Administration and Economics demonstrates a robust integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in authorship practices and a commendable avoidance of academic endogamy. The institution's overall performance reveals a strong foundation, particularly in its very low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, areas where it outperforms national trends. However, this positive outlook is tempered by medium-risk signals in three key areas: a rate of publication in discontinued journals that is notably higher than the national average, a moderate rate of retracted output, and a systemic dependency on external collaborations for research impact. These vulnerabilities require strategic attention to ensure they do not undermine the institution's core mission. The College's strong academic standing, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Social Sciences, Environmental Science, and Business, Management and Accounting, provides a solid platform for this work. Aligning its operational integrity fully with its mission to "develop and transmit knowledge, wisdom and creativity" requires addressing these risks, especially the selection of publication venues, to safeguard the long-term value and reputation of its research. By focusing on enhancing due diligence and quality control, the College can fortify its position as a leader in responsible and impactful scholarship.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a prudent profile, with a Z-score of -0.085, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.021. This indicates that the center manages its affiliation declarations with greater control than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate suggests its collaborative practices are well-managed and not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.634, the institution exhibits a medium-risk signal for retracted output, but this is within a context of a nationally significant risk level (Z-score 1.173). This suggests a degree of relative containment, where the College operates with more order than the national average, though the issue persists. Retractions are complex events, but a rate at this level suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have systemic weaknesses. It serves as an alert that, beyond individual cases of honest error, there may be a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture requiring qualitative verification by management to prevent recurring malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.688, significantly lower than the national average of -0.059. This indicates a process management that is more rigorous than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's very low rate is a positive sign that it avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community rather than through endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The College shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 2.413, substantially higher than the national average of 0.812, even though both are in the medium-risk category. This indicates the institution is more prone to this risk than its environment. This high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and indicating an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.133 reflects a very low risk of hyper-authorship, consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.681). This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard and is a sign of healthy authorship practices. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of accountability. The College's excellent result here suggests its research culture promotes transparency and properly attributes credit, distinguishing its work from practices involving 'honorary' or political authorship.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 0.202 for the impact gap is nearly identical to the national average of 0.218, indicating a systemic pattern. This medium-risk level appears to reflect shared practices or regulations at a national level. A wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that, like its national peers, the institution's scientific prestige may be partly dependent and exogenous. It invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -0.942, the institution shows a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score 0.267). This preventive isolation is a significant strength. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The College's very low indicator here is a strong signal that it fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the country's already very low average of -0.157. This absence of risk signals is exemplary. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The College's negligible rate indicates that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.498 indicates a very low risk of redundant output, which is consistent with and even slightly better than the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.339). The absence of these risk signals aligns with the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The College's excellent score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over artificially increasing their output volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer review system.