| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.522 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.141 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.629 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.014 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.735 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.161 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.039 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional de Trujillo presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.123. The institution's primary strengths lie in its structural soundness and ethical research culture, demonstrated by a very low dependency on external collaborations for impact and a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship—indicators of sustainable, internally-driven excellence. This strong foundation is further supported by a more rigorous management of retractions, self-citation, and multiple affiliations compared to the national average. This operational integrity provides a solid base for its recognized leadership in key thematic areas, including its national top-tier rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Energy, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, to fully align with its mission of providing 'quality, ethical, and socially responsible' knowledge, the university must address moderate vulnerabilities in its publication strategy, specifically the tendency to publish in discontinued journals, an over-reliance on institutional journals, and patterns of redundant output. By focusing on enhancing due diligence in publication choices, the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo can fortify its reputation and ensure its significant scientific contributions achieve the global impact and ethical standing its mission demands.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.522, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.132. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to author affiliations, demonstrating more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's lower rate suggests strong internal governance that effectively mitigates the risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.108 compared to the national average of 0.931, the institution demonstrates a highly prudent profile in managing the integrity of its published work. This significantly lower rate suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. Retractions can be complex, but a rate so far below the national standard is a strong signal of responsible supervision and a healthy integrity culture, indicating that the university is successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic vulnerabilities.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.141 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.834, reflecting a prudent and externally-focused citation profile. This demonstrates that the university manages its research dissemination with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the university's academic influence is genuinely validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.629, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, shows relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 2.300. Although this signal is a matter of concern, it suggests the university operates with more order than its national environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding indicates an urgent need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.014, significantly below the national average of -0.329, the institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding authorship practices. This suggests a more rigorous and transparent approach to assigning credit than the national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are normal, a low rate like this is a positive sign. It indicates a reduced risk of author list inflation, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and discouraging 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of a contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -1.735 is in the very low-risk range, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.657. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard. A very low score here is a powerful indicator of sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is structural and not dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a strong internal capacity for generating high-quality research and exercising intellectual leadership, a key marker of institutional maturity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, well below the national average of -0.639. This demonstrates a consistent and healthy research culture, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low indicator here is a positive sign that it fosters an environment focused on quality over quantity, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of 1.161, the institution shows a medium-level risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of 0.242. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises potential conflicts of interest and a risk of academic endogamy. This score serves as a warning that a significant portion of the university's output might be bypassing independent external peer review, which could limit global visibility and suggest the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.039 signals a medium-level risk and a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.212. This suggests the center is more sensitive than its peers to practices that can inflate productivity metrics artificially. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence available to the community, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
