| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.238 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.090 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.160 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.051 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.776 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.934 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.569 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional Pedro Ruiz Gallo presents a scientific integrity profile of notable contrasts, with an overall score of 0.636 reflecting clear operational strengths alongside specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas related to authorship ethics and procedural integrity, showing very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, and effectively filtering the high national risk of retracted publications. These strengths are foundational. However, they are counterbalanced by a critical risk in the selection of publication venues, with a significant rate of output in discontinued journals, and medium-level risks associated with research fragmentation (redundant output) and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a notable national standing in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 16th in Peru) and Social Sciences (ranked 35th in Peru). To fully align with its mission of fostering "academic excellence" and "social responsibility," it is imperative to address the identified vulnerabilities. The practice of publishing in discontinued journals, in particular, directly undermines the pursuit of excellence and responsible resource management. By implementing a robust strategy for selecting high-quality dissemination channels and fostering greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, the university can leverage its solid integrity foundations to fully realize its vision of training leaders and contributing to sustainable development.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.238, a value indicating a very low incidence of this practice, which is even more controlled than the national average of -0.132. This result suggests a highly consistent and transparent approach to declaring institutional affiliations, aligning with the low-risk profile observed across the country but demonstrating an even greater degree of rigor. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution’s extremely low rate confirms the absence of any signals related to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a clear and well-managed policy in this area.
With a Z-score of -0.090, the institution maintains a low rate of retractions, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed nationally (Z-score of 0.931). This disparity indicates that the university functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic pressures or vulnerabilities that may be contributing to a higher rate of retractions across the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing; however, the institution's low score points to the opposite: a robust system of responsible supervision and methodological rigor prior to publication. This acts as a firewall, protecting the institution's scientific record and demonstrating a strong culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.160, which, while placing it in the medium risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.834. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common or pronounced within the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation. The institution's ability to keep this rate well below the national figure suggests it is more effectively avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers' and is less reliant on internal dynamics to build its impact, fostering a healthier balance between internal research continuity and external validation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.051, a critical alert that places it at a significant risk level, substantially amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 2.300). This accentuation of risk is a serious concern, as it indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and suggesting an urgent and systemic need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
With a Z-score of -0.776, the institution displays a prudent profile, showing a lower incidence of hyper-authored publications than the already low national average of -0.329. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this controlled rate suggests the university effectively promotes individual accountability and transparency, successfully avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution's Z-score of 0.934 indicates a medium risk level and a high exposure to dependency on external collaborations for impact, a rate notably higher than the national average of 0.657. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to participating in high-impact research where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous rather than a product of structural, internal capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are a result of its own consolidated research lines or its positioning in collaborations led by external partners.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low risk category, demonstrating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors and aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.639). This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy research environment where productivity is balanced with quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal integrity risks. The institution's data, however, shows no signs of such imbalances, pointing to a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a risk dynamic that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.242, a medium risk). This preventive isolation is a significant strength. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The institution's choice to prioritize external publication channels demonstrates a clear commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, reinforcing the credibility and reach of its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 2.569 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which shows a low risk (Z-score of -0.212). This indicates that the university's researchers show a greater sensitivity than their national peers to practices involving data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
