| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.190 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.325 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.696 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.268 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.425 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.292 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.986 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Autónoma del Perú presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.707, the institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal policies in specific domains. However, this is contrasted by significant risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals, which are notably higher than national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established a notable presence in Engineering and Social Sciences within Peru. These areas of academic focus are directly impacted by the identified integrity risks. The institution's mission to "train integral professionals as agents of change committed to sustainable development, research, and innovation, through quality educational proposals" is challenged by practices that suggest academic endogamy and questionable dissemination channels. Addressing these high-risk indicators is not merely a matter of compliance but is fundamental to ensuring that the university's commitment to "integrity" and "quality" is reflected in its scientific output, thereby safeguarding its reputation and the value of its contributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.190, significantly lower than the national average of -0.132. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk profile, where the complete absence of problematic signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic collaboration, the institution's very low rate suggests a well-managed and transparent system for declaring researcher affiliations, effectively avoiding any strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects strong administrative oversight and a clear policy on academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk average of 0.931. This divergence suggests the university's internal mechanisms are acting as an effective filter, protecting it from the systemic issues leading to retractions observed at the national level. Retractions are complex events, but a high rate often points to failures in pre-publication quality control. The institution's low score is a positive signal that its integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of supervision that appears to be a vulnerability elsewhere in the country.
The institution presents a critical Z-score of 4.325, far exceeding the country's medium-risk average of 0.834. This disparity indicates that the university is not only participating in but significantly amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, a situation that requires urgent review.
The university shows a significant-risk Z-score of 2.696, which accentuates the medium-risk national average of 2.300. This finding suggests the institution is more exposed than its national peers to the vulnerabilities associated with publishing in low-quality venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.268 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.329, demonstrating a very low-risk profile in this area. This result points to a consistent and well-governed approach to authorship, aligning with best practices and exceeding the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation. The university's minimal score suggests that it effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability in its publications, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -0.425, the institution demonstrates strong performance compared to the national average of 0.657, which indicates a medium risk. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of dependency seen across the country. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is reliant on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's negative score is a healthy sign, indicating that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, with excellence metrics resulting from genuine internal capacity and leadership in its research endeavors.
The institution registers a Z-score of 1.292, a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.639. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. A review is warranted to ensure that institutional pressures are not prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.242. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's minimal reliance on its own journals is a strong indicator of its commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research and avoiding the potential for academic endogamy or using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.986 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.212, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This value serves as an alert for the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The university's score suggests a tendency towards prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a practice that should be reviewed to align with standards of research integrity.
