| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.199 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.902 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.530 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.696 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.815 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.222 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.646 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.163 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas presents a complex profile, with an overall integrity risk score of 1.887, indicating areas of notable strength alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Output in Institutional Journals, suggesting robust internal governance. However, critical alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals represent the primary challenges to its scientific reputation. These weaknesses stand in contrast to the university's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national rankings in key areas like Environmental Science (1st in Peru), Business, Management and Accounting (4th), Medicine (4th), and Psychology (4th). This dichotomy highlights a potential misalignment with its mission "to train upright and innovative leaders," as the identified integrity risks could undermine the very principle of "upright" conduct. To bridge this gap, it is recommended that the institution prioritize the implementation of enhanced pre-publication quality assurance protocols and comprehensive training on selecting high-quality dissemination channels, thereby ensuring its research practices fully reflect its commitment to excellence and social transformation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.199, significantly lower than the national average of -0.132. This result indicates an absence of risk signals that is consistent with the low-risk national standard. The university's practices in this area are well-aligned with norms of transparency, showing no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” which can occur when rates are disproportionately high. This demonstrates a solid foundation in collaborative ethics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.902 is exceptionally high, positioning it as a critical outlier even within a national context (Z-score 0.931) that already shows signs of compromise in this area. This figure constitutes a global red flag. While some retractions can signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate this far above the global average alerts to a severe vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It strongly suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and decisive qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 0.530, the institution demonstrates a more controlled approach to self-citation compared to the national average of 0.834. This suggests a differentiated management strategy that effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by keeping this rate below the national trend, the institution mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and avoids the perception of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.
The institution's Z-score of 4.696 is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a Z-score of 2.300. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a severe warning regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.815, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.329. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This responsible approach effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the questionable practice of 'honorary' or political authorships, reinforcing transparency in its research contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.222, indicating a much smaller impact gap than the national average of 0.657. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced at the country level. A very wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. By maintaining a narrower gap, the institution demonstrates that its excellence metrics are more closely tied to its own structural capabilities and intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of a reputation built on exogenous factors.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.646, almost identical to the national average of -0.639. This alignment indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal and as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest the presence of authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, there are no signals of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a complete absence of risk in this area, in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed at the national level (Z-score 0.242). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk patterns of its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.163, while still in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.212. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While citing previous work is normal, a rising trend in bibliographic overlap can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This signal, though minor, suggests a need for proactive monitoring to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
