Universidad de San Martin de Porres

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidad de San Martin de Porres demonstrates a profile of notable strengths in research integrity, contrasted with specific strategic vulnerabilities that require attention. With an overall score of 0.322, the institution excels in maintaining very low-risk levels in critical areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, indicating a solid foundation of ethical research practices. However, this is offset by a significant alert regarding the gap between its total research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers, alongside medium-risk signals in Multiple Affiliations and publication in Discontinued Journals. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with notable national rankings in Psychology (5th) and Dentistry (7th). While these thematic strengths are commendable, the identified risk of intellectual dependency could undermine the core mission of "contributing to the creation of knowledge through research." An over-reliance on external leadership for impact challenges the goal of fostering autonomous, excellent, and socially responsible scientific capacity. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, the university is advised to leverage its robust integrity culture to develop strategies that strengthen internal research leadership and ensure its scientific prestige is both sustainable and structurally self-sufficient.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.309, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.132. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The observed value warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and aligned with institutional policies, thereby safeguarding academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.931, which is in a significant risk zone. This performance indicates that the university functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic issues related to publication retractions that are prevalent at the national level. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the environment suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This result points to a healthy integrity culture that prioritizes methodological rigor and responsible research conduct.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.210 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.834. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate signals strong external validation and integration into the global scientific community. This result indicates that the university's work is being recognized and built upon by a wide range of external peers, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through internal dynamics rather than genuine international influence.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 1.822, which, while in the medium-risk category, is notably lower than the national average of 2.300. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution is actively moderating a risk that appears to be more common and pronounced across the country. Nonetheless, a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals remains a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current score indicates that a portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a continued need for information literacy training to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.092, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national average of -0.329, though both fall within the low-risk range. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the center shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some "Big Science" contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors meet the criteria for substantive contribution.

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

The institution presents a critical Z-score of 4.805, a value that dramatically exceeds the national average of 0.657. This finding indicates a significant risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A very wide positive gap signals a severe sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is overwhelmingly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result urgently invites reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a situation that could compromise its long-term scientific autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is well within the very low-risk category and significantly below the national average of -0.639. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting an environment free from practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.242. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy that can be more prevalent in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's low score indicates that its scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, ensuring global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal "fast tracks."

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution records a Z-score of -0.786, placing it in the very low-risk category and comfortably below the national average of -0.212. This result demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for this indicator. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or "salami slicing," a practice that artificially inflates productivity. The university's very low score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over fragmenting work into minimal units, thus contributing robustly to the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.