| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.274 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.487 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.846 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.732 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.044 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.252 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.148 | -0.212 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.381, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos demonstrates a profile of moderate risk, characterized by significant strengths in research governance alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its effective control over hyperprolific authorship and its remarkable resilience against the national trend of retracted publications, indicating robust internal quality checks. However, areas of vulnerability emerge in practices related to multiple affiliations, output in institutional journals, and a notable dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact. These findings are contextualized by the university's leadership position, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks among the top national institutions in key areas such as Veterinary (#1), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (#2), Arts and Humanities (#2), and Dentistry (#2). This leadership role directly reflects its mission to "generate and disseminate...knowledge...with a culture of quality and social responsibility." The identified risks, particularly those suggesting academic endogamy or impact dependency, could challenge this commitment to quality and sustainable development. Ensuring that institutional prestige is built on solid, internally-led research is crucial for fulfilling its societal role authentically. Therefore, the university is encouraged to leverage its demonstrated strengths in quality control to develop targeted policies that mitigate the identified vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its scientific leadership and ensuring its long-term alignment with its foundational mission of excellence and social contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.274 for multiple affiliations shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the national average of -0.132. This suggests that the university's researchers engage in multiple affiliations more frequently than their national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. This moderate deviation warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and contribute genuinely to the university's collaborative ecosystem rather than simply amplifying its metrics.
The university demonstrates exceptional performance in managing its publication quality, with a Z-score of -0.108, in stark contrast to the significant national risk level of 0.931. This indicates that the institution acts as an effective firewall, successfully insulating itself from the systemic issues leading to retractions elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice. The university's low score suggests its quality control mechanisms and methodological rigor are strong, preventing the kind of systemic vulnerabilities observed at the national level.
With a Z-score of 0.487, the institution shows a more controlled approach to self-citation than the national average of 0.834. This suggests a differentiated management strategy that successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the university demonstrates a greater reliance on external validation, ensuring its academic influence is recognized by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.846 for publications in discontinued journals, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 2.300. This reflects a more effective management of publication channels compared to the national context. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. Although the risk exists, the university's ability to keep this rate below the national trend suggests a more discerning approach in selecting venues, though continued vigilance and information literacy training are recommended to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -0.732, which is significantly lower than the national standard of -0.329. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than its national counterparts. When extensive author lists appear outside 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's low score suggests a healthy culture that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, promoting transparency and clear accountability in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 1.044 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research is considerably higher than the national average of 0.657, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. A very wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term scientific autonomy.
The university shows an exemplary absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413, well below the already low national average of -0.639. This low-profile consistency aligns with national standards of research integrity and surpasses them. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score in this area is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and a balance between quantity and quality over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of 1.252, the university demonstrates a significantly higher tendency to publish in its own journals compared to the national average of 0.242. This high exposure suggests a greater proneness to the risks of academic endogamy. Excessive dependence on in-house journals raises conflicts of interest, as the institution acts simultaneously as judge and party. This practice warns of the risk that scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and indicating the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.148, slightly higher than the national average of -0.212. Although the overall risk is low, this score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's score, while not alarming, suggests that monitoring this trend is necessary to ensure that research contributions remain significant and prioritize new knowledge over sheer volume.
