| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.272 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.847 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.084 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.740 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.006 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.714 | -0.212 |
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal presents a mixed landscape of scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.460 reflecting both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Redundant Output, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, where risks are virtually non-existent and performance surpasses national standards. Furthermore, it effectively filters the high national risk associated with retracted publications, showcasing robust internal quality mechanisms. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant concerns, most notably a critical rate of publication in discontinued journals and medium-risk levels in institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strongholds are in Dentistry (ranked 6th in Peru), Arts and Humanities (10th), and Engineering (15th). The identified integrity risks, particularly channeling research into low-quality journals, directly threaten the institution's mission to provide "innovative" and "competitive" training and to "contribute to the development... of the country." Pursuing publication volume in questionable venues undermines the very essence of scientific excellence and social responsibility. Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial for aligning research practices with the university's stated mission, thereby transforming its solid academic foundations into a truly sustainable and reputable scientific enterprise.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.272, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.132. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that is notably higher than the country's standard can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations and transparent contributions, maintaining the integrity of the institution's academic footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk average of 0.931. This demonstrates the presence of an effective filter, where the university successfully acts as a firewall against the systemic national issues that lead to a high rate of retractions. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than a high-risk environment suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This result is a testament to a strong integrity culture and responsible supervision, successfully mitigating a critical vulnerability prevalent in its context.
The university shows a Z-score of 1.847, which, while in the same medium-risk category as the national average of 0.834, is substantially higher. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to these practices than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.084, a critical value that significantly exceeds the national medium-risk average of 2.300. This result indicates that the university is not only participating in a risk dynamic present in the national system but is actively accentuating it. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need for information literacy and stronger policies to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.740 is well within the low-risk category and is notably lower than the national average of -0.329. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates a healthy research environment where author lists are less likely to be inflated, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
With a Z-score of 0.006, the institution shows a negligible gap, a figure significantly more favorable than the national medium-risk average of 0.657. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that appears common in the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. In contrast, the university's balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and results from real internal capacity. This indicates that the institution exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, a key marker of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -1.413, well below the national average of -0.639, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authorship. This low-profile consistency aligns with a national context that already shows minimal risk, indicating robust internal controls. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score suggests a healthy research culture where authorship is assigned based on substantive participation, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.242). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk behaviors common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's minimal reliance on its own journals demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, preventing academic endogamy and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.714, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.212. This low-profile consistency indicates an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's excellent result suggests that its researchers prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, contributing to a healthier scientific record and avoiding practices that overburden the peer-review system.
