| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.193 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.632 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.582 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.459 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.283 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.796 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.277 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional de San Agustin presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in core research practices but also critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.721, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas that signal a robust ethical foundation, such as a very low rate of output in institutional journals and a rate of retracted publications that is significantly below the national average, which is itself high. These strengths are foundational. However, they are contrasted by a critical alert in the rate of publications in discontinued journals, which is alarmingly high and far exceeds the national trend. This, combined with moderate risks in hyper-authorship, impact dependency, and redundant output, suggests a disconnect between foundational integrity and the practicalities of publication strategy. Thematically, the university shows strong positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 5th in Peru), Business, Management and Accounting (7th), and Psychology (8th). These areas of excellence are directly threatened by the identified risks; publishing top-tier research in low-quality journals undermines the mission to generate "scientific knowledge" and contribute to "sustainable development." Pursuing "excellence" is incompatible with practices that suggest a lack of due diligence. The university's challenge is to leverage its clear institutional strengths in research ethics to implement rigorous quality control over its publication channels, thereby ensuring its scientific output receives the credible, global recognition it deserves.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.193, slightly below the national average of -0.132. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration, reflecting slightly more rigor than the national standard. The low rate suggests that the university's affiliations are the result of legitimate researcher mobility and genuine partnerships rather than strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit. This controlled and transparent management of co-authorships aligns with standard international practices and signals a healthy collaborative ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk Z-score of 0.931. This disparity highlights the university's role as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic integrity risks that appear to be prevalent at the national level. While a high national rate can point to vulnerabilities in quality control mechanisms, the institution’s strong performance suggests its pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, protecting its scientific record and demonstrating a mature culture of integrity.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.632 for self-citation, which is below the national average of 0.834. Although both fall within a medium-risk band, the university's lower value suggests a differentiated management approach that moderates the risk of insularity common in the country. This indicates a reduced tendency toward creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating impact through endogamous validation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, the institution appears more engaged with the external scientific community for scrutiny and validation than its national peers, though this area warrants continued monitoring to maintain a healthy balance.
The institution's Z-score of 3.582 in this indicator is a critical alert, significantly exceeding the country's already moderate Z-score of 2.300. This finding suggests the university is not just reflecting but actively amplifying a national vulnerability concerning the selection of publication venues. A Z-score this high indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent need to implement policies and training on due diligence to prevent the waste of research resources on 'predatory' or low-impact publishing.
With a Z-score of 0.459, the institution shows a medium risk for hyper-authored output, deviating moderately from the national average of -0.329, which is in the low-risk category. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to authorship inflation than its peers. This signal warrants an internal review to distinguish between legitimate large-scale collaborations, common in 'Big Science', and potential 'honorary' authorship practices that dilute individual accountability. Ensuring transparency and clear contribution criteria is essential to uphold the integrity of authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 2.283 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.657, even though both are classified as medium risk. This demonstrates the university's high exposure to impact dependency, making it far more prone to this alert signal than its environment. Such a wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily reliant on external partners, signaling a sustainability risk. This metric invites a crucial strategic reflection on whether its high-impact results stem from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from a supporting role in collaborations led by others.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.796, a value slightly lower than the national average of -0.639, indicating a prudent profile in managing research productivity. This suggests that the university's processes are governed with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. The very low incidence of authors with extreme publication volumes points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation that can arise from a focus on metrics over meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low risk in this area, contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.242. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risk dynamics associated with in-house publishing that are more common nationally. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, reinforcing a culture of competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.277 places it at a medium risk for redundant output, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.212. This suggests the university is more susceptible to practices that artificially inflate publication counts than its national peers. This signal warrants attention, as it may point to instances of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units. Such a practice can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, making it advisable to review publication patterns to ensure that research prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.
