| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.402 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.344 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.895 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.896 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.441 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.065 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
The Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodriguez de Mendoza de Amazonas presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance alongside specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of 0.443, the institution demonstrates a commendable capacity for internal control, particularly in maintaining intellectual leadership, avoiding academic endogamy, and ensuring responsible authorship practices. These strengths are evidenced by very low-risk indicators in the impact gap of its own research, publication in institutional journals, and redundant publications. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, most critically in the selection of publication venues, with a high rate of output in discontinued journals. This, combined with medium-risk levels in institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations, suggests that while internal processes are robust, the interface with the external scientific ecosystem requires immediate attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, including top-10 rankings in Peru for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's mission to generate "quality" knowledge for "sustainable development" is directly challenged by practices that could compromise its long-term reputation and the global validity of its research. By leveraging its proven internal governance to implement stricter quality controls on external publication channels, the university can protect its academic assets and fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision of excellence and social commitment.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.402, a medium-risk value that deviates moderately from the low-risk national average of -0.132. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to factors driving multiple affiliations than its national peers, warranting a review of its causes. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The observed level indicates a need to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive collaboration, maintaining the integrity of the institution's contribution to science.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that stands in stark contrast to the significant-risk national average of 0.931. This strong performance indicates that the university functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic issues affecting research integrity at the national level. The institution's quality control mechanisms appear robust, preventing the types of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to high retraction rates. This result signifies a culture of responsible supervision and a commitment to correcting the scientific record, which is a key pillar of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 2.344, a medium-risk value that is substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.834. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the university is more prone to these practices than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The university shows a significant-risk Z-score of 2.895, a figure that not only is high in absolute terms but also amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.300. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.896, which is well within the low-risk category and notably more prudent than the national average of -0.329. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of hyper-authorship indicates that the institution effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability in its publications, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
With a Z-score of -1.441, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.657). This excellent result indicates that the university does not replicate the dependency on external partners for impact seen elsewhere in the country. A minimal gap suggests that scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, not dependent and exogenous. This reflects a strong internal capacity for intellectual leadership, where the institution's excellence metrics are a direct result of its own research capabilities rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of 0.065 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.639. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to factors that encourage hyperprolificacy. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university has a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that signals a preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed in the country (Z-score of 0.242). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.186, a very low-risk value that aligns with the low-risk national standard of -0.212. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals related to data fragmentation. The university's practices appear to favor the publication of coherent, significant studies over the division of research into minimal publishable units. This responsible approach avoids artificially inflating productivity metrics and contributes positively to the scientific ecosystem by not overburdening the review system with redundant submissions.
