| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.396 | -0.396 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.240 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.033 | -1.033 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.273 | -0.273 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.492 | 1.492 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.088 | 4.088 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.114 | -0.114 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.829 | 1.829 |
The Universidad Nacional de Asuncion presents a scientific integrity profile with an overall score of 0.114, indicating a solid foundation but with specific, critical vulnerabilities that precisely mirror the national scientific landscape. The institution's primary strengths lie in its commitment to external validation, demonstrated by very low-risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Institutional Journals. However, significant risks are evident in Hyper-Authored Output and a pronounced Gap between the impact of its total output and that of research under its direct leadership, with a medium risk in Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a clear leadership position within Paraguay, ranking first nationally in key areas such as Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine, where it also achieves a strong standing in Latin America. This leadership role is challenged by the identified risks; a dependency on external leadership for impact and potential authorship inflation directly contradict the mission's aim to "strengthen its national and international role" through its own "creation and dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge." These practices could undermine the "ethical principles" and "socially responsible spirit" central to its identity. By addressing these systemic challenges, which reflect a broader national pattern, the university has a unique opportunity to not only enhance its own integrity but also to pioneer best practices and lead a national dialogue on research excellence and sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.396 is identical to the national average of -0.396. This perfect alignment indicates that the university's collaborative patterns and researcher affiliations are statistically normal and fully consistent with the prevailing practices within its national context. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current low-risk level suggests that the observed instances are a legitimate reflection of researcher mobility and partnerships, posing no immediate threat to institutional integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.240, matching the country's score of -0.240, the institution demonstrates a level of retracted publications that is standard for its environment. This low and typical rate is a positive signal, suggesting that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions are complex events, and a low incidence like this is often indicative of responsible supervision and the diligent correction of unintentional errors, rather than systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.033, which is in complete synchrony with the national average of -1.033. This exceptionally low value represents a significant strength, demonstrating a robust culture of external validation and scientific openness. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the university effectively mitigates the risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact. This alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security confirms that the institution's academic influence is being validated by the global community, not just by internal dynamics.
The Z-score for output in discontinued journals is -0.273, a figure that is perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.273. This indicates a normal and expected level of risk for the national context, suggesting that the institution's researchers are, on the whole, exercising appropriate due diligence in selecting publication venues. The low score implies that the proportion of scientific production channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is minimal, thereby protecting the institution from significant reputational harm.
A significant Z-score of 1.492, identical to the national average of 1.492, signals that the institution is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic concerning authorship practices. This high value suggests a systemic issue that extends beyond legitimate 'Big Science' collaborations. It points toward a widespread pattern of author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This shared national crisis requires an urgent internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship, which compromises the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 4.088 is exceptionally high and mirrors the country's score of 4.088, indicating that it is part of a standard national crisis related to scientific dependency. This value reveals a critical sustainability risk, as it suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. The wide gap between the high impact of its collaborative work and the low impact of research it leads intellectually calls for a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.114, identical to the national average of -0.114, the institution shows a low and statistically normal risk level for hyperprolific authors. This indicates that extreme individual publication volumes are not a systemic issue. The university appears to be effectively avoiding the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from such practices, thereby mitigating risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.268, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This very low-risk level is a commendable strength, demonstrating that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own publication channels. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving robust global visibility and competitive validation.
The Z-score of 1.829 for redundant output, which is identical to the country's score of 1.829, points to a systemic pattern of risk at a national level. This medium-risk value suggests that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is a shared tendency. This behavior, often called 'salami slicing,' distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system. The institution's alignment with this national pattern indicates a need to reinforce publication ethics guidelines to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
