| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.184 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.769 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.571 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.713 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.107 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.402 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional del Callao presents a scientific integrity profile with an overall score of 0.658, characterized by notable strengths in operational governance but also critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Multiple Affiliations, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal policies that foster a healthy research environment. However, this positive performance is contrasted by a significant-risk alert in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and medium-risk signals in Redundant Output and the Gap between its total impact and the impact of its led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Engineering and Social Sciences. To fully align with its mission of promoting research with "quality, competitiveness, and social responsibility," it is imperative to address the identified risks. The practice of publishing in discontinued journals directly undermines the principles of quality and competitiveness, while a high dependency on external collaborations for impact could limit its long-term contribution to the nation's sustainable development. By focusing on improving the selection of publication venues and strengthening its intellectual leadership, the university can consolidate its integrity framework and ensure its scientific output genuinely reflects its institutional mission.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.184, a value indicating a very low risk level that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.132. This result suggests a clear and well-managed affiliation policy, showing no signs of the risk dynamics present elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's data shows an absence of signals that might point to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a consistent and low-profile approach to research partnerships that aligns with national standards of good practice.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in a national context marked by a significant-risk Z-score of 0.931. This notable difference suggests that the university functions as an effective filter against the systemic issues that may be affecting its environment. Retractions can be complex, but a high rate often points to systemic failures in quality control. In this case, the institution's low score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are robust, successfully preventing the types of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that appear to be a vulnerability at the national level.
The university demonstrates a low-risk Z-score of -0.769, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.834. This indicates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of endogamy observed in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's prudent rate suggests it avoids the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates that its academic influence is validated through sufficient external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, a sign of healthy integration into the global research community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.571, a significant-risk level that sharply contrasts with and elevates the medium-risk national average of 2.300. This finding indicates that the university is not only participating in a national vulnerability but is amplifying it. This high Z-score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it 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 risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy and policy enforcement to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution's Z-score of -0.713 is situated within a low-risk context, slightly more rigorous than the national average of -0.329. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater care than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, a high rate can signal author list inflation. The university's controlled score indicates it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
With a Z-score of 1.107, the institution shows a medium-risk signal that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.657. This indicates a high exposure to dependency on external collaborations for impact, a pattern that is more accentuated here than in its environment. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to its long-term scientific sustainability.
The institution registers a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that is well below the low-risk national average of -0.639. This result demonstrates a consistent, low-profile approach to author productivity that aligns with best practices. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's exceptionally low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, showing no evidence of the dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 places it at a very low risk level, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.242. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. The institution's minimal reliance on such channels confirms its commitment to seeking global visibility and competitive validation for its research, rather than using internal platforms as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
The institution displays a Z-score of 1.402, a medium-risk signal that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.212. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior, which is not prevalent at the national level, distorts the scientific evidence and suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
