| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.627 | 0.275 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.427 | -0.080 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.177 | 0.381 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.355 | 0.314 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.425 | -0.002 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.503 | 1.641 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.303 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.148 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.865 | -0.248 |
The University of Santo Tomas demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.045. The institution's primary strengths lie in its control over authorship and publication practices, with very low risk signals in the rates of hyperprolific authors, redundant output (salami slicing), and publication in institutional journals. These areas of excellence are complemented by a prudent management of self-citation and hyper-authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals, which are misaligned with its mission. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position within the Philippines, ranking #1 in critical thematic areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. To fully align its operational practices with its mission to be a beacon of "truth" and form "competent and compassionate professionals," the university should focus on mitigating the identified medium-level risks, which could otherwise undermine its commitment to the "generation, advancement, and transmission of knowledge" for the global community. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the University of Santo Tomas can solidify its position as a national leader in both research excellence and scientific integrity.
The university's Z-score of 0.627, while in the medium-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of 0.275. This suggests a high exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this heightened signal indicates that the institution is more prone to practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A review of institutional policies governing researcher affiliations is recommended to ensure that all declared connections reflect substantive contributions and maintain full transparency.
With a Z-score of 0.427, the institution presents a medium risk level, which marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.080. This indicates a greater sensitivity to factors leading to retractions compared to its peers. A rate significantly higher than the national average serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This discrepancy suggests a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further incidents.
The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.177, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.381. This performance suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of endogamous impact inflation that are more prevalent at the national level. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the university avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.355 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.314, placing both in a medium-risk category and indicating a systemic pattern. This shared vulnerability suggests that the institution's practices reflect a broader national challenge in selecting appropriate publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, indicating that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The university exhibits a prudent profile regarding authorship, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.425 that is significantly better than the national standard of -0.002. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the national average. This low score confirms that the university is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby avoiding the risks of author list inflation and the dilution of individual accountability and transparency.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 0.503, the institution shows differentiated management compared to the much higher national average of 1.641. This performance indicates that the university is successfully moderating the common national risk of high dependency on external partners for its scientific impact. While the score still suggests some reliance on collaborations for prestige, the significantly smaller gap points toward a greater development of internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This healthier balance reduces the sustainability risk associated with an impact profile that is primarily dependent and exogenous.
The university maintains an exemplary profile with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, far below the already low-risk national average of -0.303. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes research quality over sheer publication volume. The absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the university effectively discourages practices where authorship might be assigned without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record and avoiding potential imbalances between quantity and quality.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.148. This result signifies that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and validates its scientific output through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
With a very low-risk Z-score of -0.865, the university's performance is significantly stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.248. This low-profile consistency highlights a clear institutional commitment to producing substantive and impactful research. The near-total absence of signals for redundant output shows that the university actively discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—thereby prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge and respecting the integrity of the scientific review system.
