| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.142 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.911 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.737 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.140 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.075 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.126 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.308 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.279 | -0.212 |
The Universidad de Lima presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.433 that indicates specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining editorial independence, with a very low rate of publication in its own journals, and exhibits prudent management of hyper-authorship and redundant publications. These positive aspects are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted publications, which stands as a global red flag, alongside medium-risk indicators in institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations. Thematic leadership is evident, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing the University in the national Top 5 for Business, Management and Accounting and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and in the Top 10 for areas like Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences. However, the detected integrity risks, particularly concerning retractions, directly challenge the institutional mission's commitment to "quality processes" and forming professionals "recognized for their merits." To consolidate its academic leadership and ensure its reputation aligns with its stated values of excellence and social responsibility, it is imperative to implement targeted review and reinforcement of pre-publication quality control mechanisms.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.142, which contrasts with the national average of -0.132. This moderate deviation from the national standard suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices that can lead to this risk indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and justified, thereby preventing any strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 3.911, the institution's rate of retractions is a critical anomaly, dramatically exceeding the already high national average of 0.931. This constitutes a global red flag, positioning the center as a leader in risk metrics within a nationally compromised environment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not merely a series of isolated incidents but a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 1.737, notably higher than the national average of 0.834. This reveals a high exposure to this risk factor compared to the broader environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The value warns of a potential for 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 shows a Z-score of 1.140, which, despite being a medium-risk signal, is considerably lower than the national average of 2.300. This indicates a case of differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. A high proportion of publications in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's better-than-average performance suggests more effective control, though continued vigilance is necessary to avoid channeling resources into 'predatory' or low-quality media that pose severe reputational risks.
With a Z-score of -1.075, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, performing more rigorously than the national standard, which has a score of -0.329. This low incidence of hyper-authored publications suggests a healthy approach to authorship. It indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 1.126 is higher than the national average of 0.657, indicating a greater exposure to this particular risk. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This score suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships that do not yet reflect a structural and autonomous research strength.
The university's Z-score of -0.308, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.639. This points to an incipient vulnerability. Although not currently a significant issue, it represents a signal that warrants review before escalating. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight uptick suggests a need to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, ensuring that productivity metrics do not inadvertently encourage practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.242. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution actively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review strengthens the competitive validation of its research and enhances its global visibility.
With a Z-score of -0.279, the institution displays a prudent profile, managing its processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard (-0.212). This low incidence of redundant output is a positive sign. It indicates that the university's researchers are less prone to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach helps maintain the integrity of the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system, prioritizing significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
