| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.779 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
6.757 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.314 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.380 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.554 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.787 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.137 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.689 | -0.212 |
Universidad Continental demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.349. The institution exhibits commendable strengths and robust control in several key areas, particularly in managing redundant output, publication in institutional journals, and ensuring intellectual leadership in its collaborations. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention, most notably an exceptionally high rate of retracted publications, alongside medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Engineering (ranked 4th in Peru), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (6th), and both Computer Science and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (7th). These areas of academic excellence are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The institutional mission to "form leaders... to create a positive impact" is fundamentally undermined when the research foundation shows signs of systemic quality control failure. A positive impact is contingent on credibility, and the current risk profile, especially concerning retractions, could compromise the institution's reputation and the perceived value of its research. To fully align its operational reality with its ambitious vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its demonstrated governance capabilities to implement targeted interventions, focusing on pre-publication review protocols and ethical dissemination practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.779, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.132. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, surpassing the standard practices observed across the country. This result suggests that the university's policies effectively ensure that affiliations are legitimate and reflect genuine collaboration, rather than being used for strategic inflation of institutional credit. The institution's performance in this area points to a well-controlled system that minimizes the risk of "affiliation shopping" and reinforces transparency in its collaborative research footprint.
The institution's Z-score of 6.757 is alarmingly high, positioning it as a critical outlier when compared to the already significant national average of 0.931. This disparity constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university is not only operating in a compromised national environment but is leading its risk metrics. While some retractions result from honest error correction, a Z-score of this magnitude suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate, being exceptionally higher than the global average, alerts to a severe vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a profound lack of methodological rigor that requires an immediate and decisive qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 1.314, the institution shows a higher rate of self-citation than the national average of 0.834. This suggests a high level of exposure to the risks associated with this practice, making the university more prone to showing alert signals than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.380 is slightly above the national average of 2.300, indicating a high exposure to the risks of publishing in low-quality venues, a trend that is more pronounced at the university than in the country as a whole. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or substandard practices.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.554, a value that reflects a more conservative approach compared to the national average of -0.329. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the national standard. This is a positive signal, indicating that the institution is less prone to the risks of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships. The data suggests a healthy culture of accountability and transparency in collaborative projects, where authorship is likely tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.787, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.657, which indicates a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A negative score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is strong, avoiding the sustainability risk of depending on external partners for prestige. This result suggests that the university's scientific excellence is derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution displays a higher rate of hyperprolific authors than the national average of -0.639. This signals an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows early signs of a risk that warrants review before it escalates. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, effectively isolating it from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.242). This preventive isolation demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.689, indicating a very low risk of redundant publication, which aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.212). This low-profile consistency shows that the university's practices are in sync with a healthy national environment in this regard. The near-total absence of signals for this indicator suggests that the institution effectively discourages 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a commitment to producing significant new knowledge over prioritizing publication volume.
