| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.969 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.692 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.592 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.566 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.561 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional Jorge Basadre Grohmann de Tacna demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.748. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in preventing hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and excessive multiple affiliations, indicating a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. These strengths are complemented by a notable capacity to mitigate systemic national risks, such as the rate of retracted publications. However, a critical vulnerability emerges in the high rate of publications in discontinued journals, which represents the primary area for strategic intervention. The institution's academic strengths, as highlighted by its national rankings in Environmental Science (Top 19) and Social Sciences (Top 17) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid base for growth. To fully align with its mission of providing training with "quality and social responsibility," it is imperative to address the identified publication risk, as channeling research through unreliable outlets directly undermines the principles of quality and public trust. By focusing on enhancing information literacy and promoting due diligence in the selection of publication venues, the University can protect its reputation, optimize its resources, and ensure its scientific contributions achieve the credible, global impact they deserve.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.969, a value indicating an exceptionally low incidence of this practice, especially when compared to the national average of -0.132. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent affiliation policy that aligns with the low-risk profile observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate signals an environment free from strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a transparent and straightforward approach to academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the significant risk level observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.931). This disparity suggests that the University functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic vulnerabilities that affect its environment. A rate significantly lower than the national average indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms and integrity culture are robust, preventing the type of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent elsewhere and demonstrating a strong commitment to responsible supervision.
The institution's Z-score of 0.692 places it in the medium-risk category, a level similar to the national average of 0.834. However, the University's slightly lower score indicates a differentiated management of this risk. It suggests that while operating within a national context where self-citation is a common practice, the institution exercises greater moderation. This helps mitigate the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is subject to more external scrutiny than its national peers, thus avoiding an endogamous inflation of its academic impact and fostering greater recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 5.592 signals a significant and critical risk, starkly accentuating the vulnerability already present at the national level (Z-score of 2.300). This high value is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and immediate need to implement information literacy programs to prevent the waste of valuable research resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.566, which reflects a prudent and well-managed approach to authorship, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.329). This low-risk profile indicates that the University effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By maintaining control over this indicator, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the value of scientific contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.561, the institution shows a moderate gap, but it manages this indicator more effectively than the national average (Z-score of 0.657). This suggests a more balanced and sustainable research profile. While a certain degree of reliance on external partners for impact is common, the University's contained gap indicates that its scientific prestige is less dependent on exogenous factors and more rooted in its own structural capacity. This reflects a positive trajectory towards consolidating its intellectual leadership rather than simply holding a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, significantly below the national average of -0.639. This demonstrates an exemplary institutional culture that prioritizes scientific quality over sheer publication volume. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests that the University successfully avoids the risks associated with coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution. This focus on substance over metrics reinforces the integrity of its scientific record and promotes a healthy research environment.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low reliance on its own journals and isolating it from the risks observed at the national level, where the average is 0.242. This is a sign of institutional maturity and strategic vision. By not depending on in-house journals, the University avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This approach strengthens the credibility of its research and enhances its global visibility, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic résumés without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of redundant publications, a figure that is substantially healthier than the national average of -0.212. This result points to a strong institutional commitment to producing significant and original knowledge. The near absence of signals related to 'salami slicing' indicates that researchers are focused on presenting coherent studies rather than fragmenting data to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only upholds the integrity of the scientific record but also respects the resources of the peer-review system.
