| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.134 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.042 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.044 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
9.612 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.929 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.827 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.573 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional de Educacion Enrique Guzman y Valle demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low aggregate risk score of 1.592. The institution exhibits exceptional control in multiple key areas, including a near-zero risk in hyperprolific authorship, institutional self-citation, and reliance on external collaborations for impact, consistently outperforming national averages. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by three significant vulnerabilities: a medium risk in the rate of retracted output and redundant publications, and a critical alert concerning the high rate of output in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the institution's mission to provide "scientific" and "innovative" training with "social responsibility," as they suggest potential gaps in quality control and due diligence. Given the institution's strong positioning in Social Sciences, where it ranks 30th in Peru according to SCImago Institutions Rankings, it is imperative to address these integrity risks to protect and enhance its reputation. A strategic focus on strengthening publication policies and enhancing author training on selecting high-quality dissemination channels will be crucial to align its practices fully with its stated commitment to excellence and social contribution.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.134, indicating a very low risk that is even more controlled than the national average (Z-score: -0.132). This demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, aligning perfectly with the low-risk standards observed across the country. The absence of risk signals suggests that affiliations are managed legitimately, without any indication of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting sound and ethical partnership practices.
With a Z-score of 0.042, the institution shows a medium risk level, yet this figure indicates a notable degree of relative containment when compared to the significant risk observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.931). This suggests that while some risk signals are present, the institution's internal processes operate with more order than the national average. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly lower than the country's average suggests that quality control mechanisms are more effective at mitigating systemic failures. Nevertheless, this signal warrants a qualitative review to ensure pre-publication supervision is robust and to continuously reinforce the institution's culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.044 is exceptionally low, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk self-citation dynamics prevalent in the country (Z-score: 0.834). This result is a strong indicator of scientific openness, showing that the institution's work is validated by the broader international community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' Such a low rate effectively dismisses any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is built on external recognition and engagement.
The institution's Z-score of 9.612 represents a critical alert, indicating a significant risk level that dramatically amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.300). This extremely high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a severe warning regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage. This finding points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a low Z-score of -0.929, a figure that reflects more rigorous process management than the national standard (Z-score: -0.329). This demonstrates effective oversight of authorship practices. The data suggests that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation, thereby avoiding the dilution of individual accountability and ensuring transparency in its publications.
With a very low Z-score of -0.827, the institution shows a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership, effectively isolating itself from the national trend where a medium-risk dependency is observed (Z-score: 0.657). This result strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not reliant on external partners. This reflects a solid internal capacity for generating high-impact research, ensuring its excellence metrics are a true measure of its own intellectual leadership and sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors and a profile that is even more controlled than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.639). This low-profile consistency points to a healthy institutional culture where a balance between productivity and quality is maintained. There is no evidence of practices such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without meaningful contribution, reinforcing that the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's very low Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the national tendency towards publishing in institutional journals (country Z-score: 0.242). This practice successfully avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review over in-house channels, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which in turn enhances its global visibility and scientific credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 1.573 signifies a medium risk level, which constitutes a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.212). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that can lead to redundant publications. The score serves as an alert to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study might be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and warrants a review of academic incentives to ensure that the publication of significant, new knowledge is prioritized over sheer volume.
