| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.116 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.896 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.452 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.915 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.070 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.054, the Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco demonstrates a generally positive profile, characterized by significant strengths in research ethics alongside critical, isolated vulnerabilities. The institution excels in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, indicating a robust culture of external validation and responsible authorship. However, significant risks in Hyper-Authored Output and a large Gap between its total and led-research impact suggest systemic challenges that require immediate attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's outstanding national leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it ranks 2nd in Peru for Earth and Planetary Sciences and 4th for Environmental Science. These thematic strengths align perfectly with its mission to strengthen its "Andean-Amazonian identity." However, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the mission's core commitment to providing "scientific training... with values, principles, and social responsibility." Addressing the authorship and impact dependency issues is therefore crucial not only for mitigating reputational risk but for ensuring that its scientific excellence is both authentic and sustainable, fully honoring its foundational mission.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.116, which shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.132. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher-than-average rate suggests a need to review affiliation practices. This signal warrants an internal analysis to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or instances of “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates exemplary performance, especially when contrasted with the significant risk level observed nationally (0.931). This result suggests that the university functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating its scientific output from broader national practices that could compromise publication integrity. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate in a high-risk environment indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are robust and effective, reflecting a strong and resilient culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.896 is exceptionally low, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics prevalent in the country (0.834). This outstanding result indicates that the university's research is validated by the global scientific community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this very low value confirms that the institution successfully avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.452, while indicating a medium risk, reflects a more controlled situation compared to the national average of 2.300. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the institution effectively moderates a risk that appears more common and pronounced across the country. Nonetheless, a medium-risk signal highlights the need for continued vigilance. It underscores the importance of reinforcing due diligence in selecting publication venues to avoid channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thus protecting the institution from reputational harm and wasted resources.
A Z-score of 1.915 marks a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national benchmark of -0.329. This atypical level of activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. In fields outside of "Big Science," where extensive author lists are not the norm, such a high rate can indicate author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal makes it imperative to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could undermine the credibility of the institution's research.
The institution's Z-score of 4.070 is exceptionally high, significantly accentuating a vulnerability already present in the national system (0.657). This extremely wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a critical risk to its scientific sustainability. Such a high value suggests that its prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structurally embedded. This finding calls for an urgent strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a low-profile consistency, as its complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the generally low-risk national standard (-0.639). This indicates that the university fosters a research environment free from the pressures that can lead to hyperprolificity. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, indicating a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.242). This is a positive finding, suggesting the university does not rely excessively on its own publication channels. While in-house journals can be valuable, this low rate confirms that the institution's research largely undergoes independent external peer review, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.186, a very low value that demonstrates low-profile consistency with the national context (-0.212). This absence of risk signals indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach ensures that the institution contributes coherent and significant knowledge to the scientific record, avoiding the distortion of evidence and the overburdening of the peer-review system associated with 'salami slicing'.
