| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.019 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.656 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.824 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.191 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.630 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional del Centro del Peru demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.061 that indicates a performance well above the national standard. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas related to authorship practices and publication ethics, including minimal rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and redundant output. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium-risk level associated with publication in discontinued journals and a notable gap in the impact of its self-led research. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Veterinary (ranked 5th in Peru), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (9th), and Environmental Science (15th). While the overall low-risk profile aligns with the institutional mission to provide "quality" and "relevant" services, the identified vulnerabilities could undermine these core values. Publishing in low-quality journals contradicts the commitment to excellence, and a dependency on external partners for impact may limit the capacity to drive "regional and national development" with sovereign intellectual leadership. Therefore, a proactive strategy focused on enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection and fostering internal research leadership is recommended to fully align the institution's operational practices with its mission of social responsibility and academic excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.019, a value indicating a very low risk, which contrasts with the national average of -0.132. This comparison suggests a pattern of low-profile consistency, where the institution's complete absence of risk signals in this area is in harmony with the generally low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution’s exceptionally low rate confirms that its crediting practices are clear and not susceptible to strategic inflation or “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a transparent and well-governed system of institutional attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.931, which is at a significant risk level. This marked difference indicates that the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic integrity vulnerabilities observed across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average, as seen nationally, can point to failing quality control mechanisms. The institution’s ability to maintain a low rate suggests its pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, acting as a firewall against the recurring malpractice or lack of integrity culture that may be affecting its environment.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.656, positioning it in the low-risk category, while the national average is 0.834, a medium-risk level. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the higher national rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' In contrast, the institution's low score indicates that its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensuring its academic influence is based on broad community recognition, not just internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of 1.824, a medium-risk level that, while concerning, is notably lower than the national average of 2.300. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that appears to be a more acute and common problem nationwide. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the institution is not immune to this issue, its better-than-average performance indicates some level of control. Nevertheless, this remains a significant vulnerability, exposing a portion of its scientific output to reputational risks and suggesting a need to reinforce information literacy to prevent channeling resources into 'predatory' or low-quality media.
With a Z-score of -1.191, the institution exhibits a very low risk in this area, performing better than the national average of -0.329. This result points to low-profile consistency, where the institution's absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation. The institution's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score is 0.630, a medium-risk value that is nearly identical to the national average of 0.657. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, suggesting the risk level reflects shared practices or structural conditions at a national level rather than an issue unique to the institution. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The score suggests that, like many of its national peers, the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning that relies on exogenous influence.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk that is significantly better than the national average of -0.639. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with the institution's clean record reinforcing the low-risk environment of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's virtually non-existent rate of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy academic culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics, avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in the very low-risk category, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.242, which falls into the medium-risk range. This divergence highlights a state of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them, as hinted at by the national score, raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The institution's minimal use of its own journals for publication demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 places it in the very low-risk category, outperforming the national average of -0.212. This indicates low-profile consistency, as the institution's absence of risk signals is fully aligned with the country's low-risk standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can be a sign of 'salami slicing,' a practice of fragmenting studies to artificially inflate productivity. The institution’s extremely low score confirms that its researchers are focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than distorting the scientific record with redundant publications, reflecting a strong commitment to research quality over sheer volume.
