| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.274 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.039 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.271 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.616 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.399 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.431 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.287 indicating performance that is significantly healthier than many of its national peers. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over practices that are systemic risks within the country, particularly in avoiding retracted publications, institutional self-citation, and the use of discontinued journals. This showcases effective internal governance and a strong integrity culture. Areas for strategic attention include a moderate risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which exceeds the national average, and the Gap between its overall impact and the impact of its own-led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic leadership is concentrated in areas central to its identity, such as Veterinary (ranked 3rd in Peru), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (5th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (8th). These results largely align with its mission to train competent, leading professionals for sustainable development. However, the identified risk in impact dependency could challenge the mission's emphasis on generating knowledge through internal leadership. By addressing these moderate risks, the university can further solidify its position as a benchmark for scientific excellence and social commitment in the region.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.274, a value that indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average Z-score is -0.132. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor 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 “affiliation shopping”. The observed value warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than purely metric-driven arrangements.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low-risk profile, especially when contrasted with the significant national risk level (Z-score of 0.931). This performance indicates that the university acts as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from systemic vulnerabilities present in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a national rate significantly higher than the global average can point to widespread issues in quality control. The university's ability to maintain a clean record in this area suggests that its pre-publication review mechanisms and integrity culture are robust, serving as a firewall against the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
The university's Z-score of -0.039 reflects a low-risk profile that demonstrates institutional resilience, particularly when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.834. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the higher national average points to a tendency toward 'echo chambers'. The university, by contrast, avoids this pitfall, ensuring its work is validated by the broader scientific community and steering clear of the endogamous impact inflation that can arise from insufficient external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.271 is a strong indicator of institutional resilience and responsible publication practices, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 2.300, which falls into a medium-risk category. This discrepancy highlights the university's effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While the national trend suggests a vulnerability to predatory or low-quality publishing, the university's low score indicates that its researchers are successfully avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and ensures research resources are not wasted.
With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution exhibits a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score of -0.329). This low value is a positive signal, indicating that the university's authorship practices are well-managed and transparent. The data suggests a healthy distance from the risk of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability. This reflects a culture where authorship is likely tied to significant intellectual contribution, reinforcing the integrity of its research outputs.
The institution's Z-score of 0.399 places it in a medium-risk category, though it reflects differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 0.657. This indicates the university is moderating a risk that appears more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap signals that scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. While the university's score still invites reflection on building more structural, self-led impact, its ability to maintain a narrower gap than the national average suggests a more sustainable strategy for developing genuine intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a very low-risk level, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national environment (Z-score of -0.639). The complete absence of this risk signal is a strong positive indicator. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's score confirms a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, marking a clear preventive isolation from the national context, where the average is 0.242 (medium risk). This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's minimal use of such channels indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the potential use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of -0.431 indicates a prudent profile and a low level of risk, showing more rigorous management than the national standard (Z-score of -0.212). This favorable score suggests that the university's research culture discourages the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By avoiding 'salami slicing,' the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and contributes significant, coherent knowledge to the field rather than overburdening the review system with redundant publications.
