| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.086 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.258 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.407 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.084 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.528 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.279 | -0.212 |
Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego demonstrates a robust and commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in a low-risk score of 0.157. The institution exhibits significant strengths in its capacity to filter out systemic national risks, particularly in preventing retractions, institutional self-citation, and academic endogamy through its own journals. These areas of excellence suggest strong internal governance and a commitment to quality control. However, strategic attention is required for a few key vulnerabilities, namely a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, a moderate tendency toward redundant output (salami slicing), and a noticeable gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research. These findings are contextualized by the institution's strong thematic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting its national leadership in Dentistry (ranked 8th in Peru), and notable standings in Arts and Humanities (16th) and Medicine (19th). The identified risks, particularly those related to publication quality and originality, present a direct challenge to the institutional mission of providing "quality, scientific and humanistic training." Pursuing publication in low-quality venues or fragmenting research contradicts the values of excellence and innovation. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can not only mitigate reputational risk but also more fully align its research practices with its stated mission, solidifying its role as a contributor to the sustainable development of the country.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.086, a value indicating a very low risk that is consistent with the low-risk national average of -0.132. This alignment demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's affiliations are managed in line with national standards. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's data shows no signs of disproportionate rates that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a solid foundation of ethical practice in this area.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk average of 0.931. This notable difference suggests the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic vulnerabilities affecting the national scientific landscape. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing. In this case, the institution's ability to maintain a low rate in a high-risk environment is a strong indicator of robust internal supervision and a resilient integrity culture, effectively preventing recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor before publication.
The institution's Z-score of -0.258 places it in the low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.834. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent systemically. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This prudent performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.407 reflects a medium-risk level, indicating a high exposure to this issue that is slightly more pronounced than the national average of 2.300. This pattern suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling research through questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be directed to media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.084, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.329. Both are in the low-risk category, but the institution's score is significantly lower. This suggests a commendable culture of accountability in authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this indicator can otherwise signal author list inflation. The institution's low score indicates that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, thereby promoting transparency and individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of 0.528 (medium risk) indicates a more controlled situation compared to the national average of 0.657 (medium risk). This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that appears common across the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where prestige is dependent on external partners. The institution's better-than-average performance suggests it is taking steps to build internal capacity, but the score still invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from its own structural capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, a signal that aligns well with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.639). This low-profile consistency indicates an environment free from the pressures that can lead to hyper-productivity. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's near-absence of this phenomenon suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average Z-score is 0.242 (medium risk). This is a significant strength, indicating the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that it does not use internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.279 places it at a medium-risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.212. This difference suggests the institution shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to publication originality than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated value serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a dynamic that can distort scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
