| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.210 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.730 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.461 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.096 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.331 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
5.618 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.982 | -0.016 |
Colegio de Postgraduados presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of 0.113 that reflects significant strengths in operational transparency and ethical conduct, alongside specific, concentrated areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance with very low risk in the rates of Multiple Affiliations, Redundant Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and publication in Discontinued Journals. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk level in Institutional Self-Citation and, most notably, a significant-risk level in Output in Institutional Journals, which stands as a critical outlier. The institution's thematic strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Veterinary according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are directly aligned with its mission to generate and apply knowledge for societal benefit. Yet, the identified risk of academic endogamy could undermine this mission by limiting the global dissemination and external validation essential for true excellence and impact. To fully realize its potential, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear integrity strengths to develop targeted policies that mitigate the risks of insularity, thereby enhancing the international visibility and credibility of its distinguished research.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary integrity profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.210, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.565. This result shows a consistent and low-risk approach to author affiliations that is in harmony with the national context. The institution's data shows no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” that can sometimes be indicated by high rates of multiple affiliations. This reflects a clear and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations, reinforcing the institution's credibility.
The institution's Z-score for retracted publications is -0.146, a value almost identical to the national average of -0.149. This alignment indicates that the rate of retractions at the institution is statistically normal and consistent with what is expected within the Mexican scientific ecosystem. This suggests that the institution's post-publication quality control mechanisms and its response to scientific errors are functioning at a level comparable to its national peers, without showing signals of systemic vulnerability in its integrity culture.
With a Z-score of 0.730, the institution's rate of self-citation is notably higher than the national average of 0.169. Although both fall within a medium-risk range, this deviation suggests the institution is more exposed to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a strong commitment to quality dissemination channels, with a Z-score of -0.461, significantly better than the national average of -0.070. This very low incidence demonstrates a robust due diligence process in selecting publication venues, aligning with best practices in the national context. This result indicates that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals, thereby protecting its reputational standing and ensuring that its scientific output contributes to reliable and enduring scholarly communication.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding authorship, with a Z-score of -1.096, which is substantially lower than the national average of -0.127. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a healthy approach to collaboration, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale projects and potential author list inflation. This responsible management reinforces individual accountability and transparency in the attribution of scientific credit.
The institution shows effective management of its research impact, with a Z-score of 0.331, which is lower than the national average of 0.479. This indicates that the institution moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A smaller gap suggests a healthier balance between the impact generated in collaboration and the impact of research led internally. This reflects a strong internal capacity for generating high-quality science, reducing dependency on external partners for prestige and signaling a sustainable model of scientific leadership and structural excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.701. This result is consistent with a national environment of low risk in this area. The data strongly suggests that the institution fosters a research culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume, effectively preventing practices like coercive or honorary authorship and ensuring the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 5.618 for publications in its own journals is a critical alert, drastically exceeding the national average of 1.054. This finding indicates that the institution is not just participating in a national trend but is amplifying this vulnerability to a significant degree. This excessive dependence on in-house journals raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the evaluation of its research, potentially bypassing independent external peer review. This practice of academic endogamy severely limits the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production and suggests that internal channels may be functioning as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records, a dynamic that requires urgent strategic review.
The institution demonstrates excellent editorial practices, with a Z-score of -0.982 for redundant publications, far below the national average of -0.016. This very low value indicates a strong institutional culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The absence of this risk signal, in line with the low-risk national context, suggests that researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating their productivity, thereby contributing to a healthier and more robust scientific literature.
