| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.422 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.329 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.221 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.798 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.057 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.734 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
The Universidad del Pacífico demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.218 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strength lies in its remarkable resilience and ability to maintain high standards of research conduct, effectively insulating itself from several systemic risks prevalent at the national level. This is particularly evident in its low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals, areas where the country shows medium to significant vulnerabilities. However, the analysis also identifies two areas requiring strategic attention: a moderate risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, both of which exceed national averages. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong positioning in its core disciplines, as shown by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks among the top institutions in Peru for Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 5), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 6), and Social Sciences (Top 12). While the institution's commitment to its mission of "academic excellence" and "scientific research" is largely supported by its strong integrity controls, the identified risks of potential affiliation inflation and academic endogamy could challenge this narrative. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its proven internal governance to review and strengthen its policies on author affiliations and the strategic role of its institutional journals, ensuring all research outputs are subject to rigorous, independent external validation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.422, which indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score: -0.132). This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The university's higher-than-average score warrants a review of its affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive collaboration and maintain transparency, rather than serving primarily as a tool for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.931). This performance suggests the university acts as an effective firewall against the systemic integrity challenges present in the country. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly higher than the average often points to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university's excellent result indicates that its internal mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and its overall integrity culture are robust, successfully preventing the kind of recurring issues that may be affecting the national scientific landscape.
The university's Z-score of -0.329 is in the low-risk range, demonstrating institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.834. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic isolation observed in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The university's prudent profile suggests its academic influence is healthily balanced between building on internal research lines and gaining recognition from the global scientific community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.221, showcasing strong institutional resilience against a practice that represents a medium-level risk for the country (Z-score: 2.300). This significant positive difference suggests the university's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert, indicating that scientific work is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. The university's low score demonstrates a commitment to avoiding predatory or low-quality practices, thereby protecting its reputational integrity and research investment.
With a Z-score of -0.798, the institution displays a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.329). Although both are in the low-risk category, the university's lower score indicates a healthier approach to authorship. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's data suggests a responsible management of authorship attribution, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorships, thus reinforcing transparency in its research outputs.
The institution's Z-score of -0.057 reflects a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience compared to the medium-risk national context (Z-score: 0.657). This result indicates that the university is not overly dependent on external partners for its scientific impact. A wide positive gap, as seen at the national level, can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is exogenous and not built on internal capacity. The university's balanced score suggests that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a signal of low-profile consistency that aligns with the generally low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.639). This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's very low score in this area reinforces a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.734, the institution shows a higher rate of publication in its own journals compared to the national average of 0.242, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to the risks of academic endogamy, suggesting the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. While in-house journals can serve valuable functions, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This pattern warns that a portion of its research might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.186, positioning it in the very low-risk category and demonstrating a consistent, low-risk profile in an area where the country also shows low risk (Z-score: -0.212). The university's exceptionally low score indicates robust editorial standards that discourage data fragmentation. High rates of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' occur when a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's performance suggests a strong institutional commitment to producing significant, coherent contributions to knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume.
