| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.173 | -0.565 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.149 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.891 | 0.169 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.210 | -0.070 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.128 | -0.127 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.794 | 0.479 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.701 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.054 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.374 | -0.016 |
The Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero demonstrates a commendable overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.334 indicating a profile with robust controls and minimal systemic vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, hyperprolific authors, and output in its own journals, reflecting strong quality assurance and responsible authorship practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Mathematics, Veterinary, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, where it holds competitive national rankings. These achievements align with its mission to foster research and technological development. Nevertheless, the identified risks of academic insularity (self-citation) and questionable dissemination channels could undermine its commitment to "link with society" and respond to national needs with verifiable excellence. To fully realize its mission, the University should leverage its solid integrity framework to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its contributions are not only impactful but also globally recognized and trusted.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.173, while the national average is -0.565. Although both scores are in the low-risk category, the University's rate is slightly higher than the country's baseline, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests the presence of collaborative patterns that, while currently unproblematic, warrant review to ensure they do not escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, it is crucial to monitor this trend to preemptively distinguish healthy collaboration from strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”.
With a Z-score of -0.400 compared to the national average of -0.149, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard. This absence of risk signals is a strong positive indicator of the University's scientific rigor. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively and systemically. This exceptionally low rate points to a robust culture of integrity and a commitment to methodological soundness, reinforcing the credibility of its research output and minimizing the need for post-publication corrections.
The University's Z-score for Institutional Self-Citation is 0.891, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.169. This disparity indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to these dynamics than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.210 for output in discontinued journals, marking a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.070. This suggests a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers, pointing to a need for enhanced vigilance. A significant proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.128 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of -0.127. This result demonstrates a consistent and exemplary adherence to responsible authorship practices, aligning with a low-risk national context. The near-total absence of hyper-authorship signals that the University effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship. This reinforces the principles of individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions, ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful participation.
With a Z-score of -0.794, the institution shows a healthy balance, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.479, which signals a systemic risk of dependency. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the University's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the country's tendency toward external reliance for impact. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own internal capacity. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The University's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.701, indicating an exceptionally low-risk profile in this area. This consistency with the national standard, but at a much lower level, highlights the institution's strong governance over authorship practices. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, which is in the very low-risk category and stands in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 1.054. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the University actively avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By not relying heavily on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.374, a value lower than the national average of -0.016. This prudent profile indicates that the University manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low score suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing,' is not a common issue. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than fragmented data strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
