| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.286 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.986 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.419 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.548 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.699 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.668 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.667 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.019 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Tecnológica del Perú presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.759 indicating areas that require strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths and robust control in managing hyper-authorship, hyperprolificacy, and particularly in its minimal reliance on institutional journals, where it stands out positively against national trends. However, these strengths are offset by significant vulnerabilities. The rate of retracted output is a critical concern, reaching a level that demands immediate action. Furthermore, medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and multiple affiliations suggest systemic issues that need to be addressed. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these risks coexist with notable thematic leadership, as the university ranks among the top 5 nationally in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Mathematics, and in the top 10 for fields like Arts and Humanities and Computer Science. This dichotomy directly challenges the institutional mission "to give all Peruvians access to quality higher education." The identified integrity risks, especially those related to publication quality and retractions, fundamentally question the "quality" commitment and could undermine the promise of enabling "a better life" through education. It is therefore recommended that the institution leverage its academic strengths and areas of good governance to implement targeted corrective measures, focusing urgently on enhancing pre-publication quality control to align its operational practices with its vital social mission.
The institution's Z-score of 0.286 for multiple affiliations indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at -0.132. This suggests that the center is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here warrants a closer look to ensure these are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." A review of affiliation policies could help clarify and reinforce best practices.
This indicator presents a global red flag for the institution. Its Z-score of 3.986 is exceptionally high and significantly surpasses the already critical national average of 0.931. This severe discrepancy signals that the institution is a leader in risk metrics within a highly compromised environment. Such a high rate of retractions suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern alerts to a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires an immediate and deep qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of 2.419, the institution demonstrates high exposure to the risks of self-citation, a rate considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.834. This suggests the center is more prone to this behavior than its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers." This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and external validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.548 reveals a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, slightly above the national average of 2.300. This indicates that the center is more susceptible to this risk than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.699 that is notably lower than the national average of -0.329. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. This strong performance suggests that authorship practices are well-controlled, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and the risk of author list inflation. This helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.668 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.657, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern shared across the country. This suggests a reliance on external partners for achieving high-impact research. While collaborations are positive, this gap signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from its positioning within collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.667, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors aligns closely with the national figure of -0.639. This demonstrates statistical normality, meaning the risk level is as expected for its context and size. This alignment suggests that extreme individual publication volumes are not a systemic issue. The institution appears to maintain a healthy balance between productivity and the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding widespread risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution shows exceptional governance in this indicator, achieving a state of preventive isolation. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed at the national level (Z-score 0.242). This performance demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk behaviors common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, it effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and enhancing its potential for global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.019, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.212, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests the center is beginning to show signals that warrant review before they escalate. This slight uptick may indicate isolated instances of data fragmentation or "salami slicing," where studies are divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Although not yet a systemic problem, this trend should prompt a preemptive review of publication ethics guidelines to ensure the focus remains on generating significant new knowledge.
