| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.553 | -0.132 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.864 | 0.931 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.988 | 0.834 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.805 | 2.300 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.127 | -0.329 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.004 | 0.657 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.639 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.212 |
Universidad Nacional de Moquegua demonstrates a strong overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in research integrity but also punctuated by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The institution excels in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant publications, indicating a solid foundation in ethical authorship and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive profile is contrasted by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, which are areas of urgent concern. These weaknesses, alongside medium-risk exposure in institutional self-citation and a notable gap in research impact leadership, directly challenge the university's mission to train professionals at a "high academic level" with an "ethical sense." While the institution shows commendable leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Earth and Planetary Sciences, the identified integrity risks could undermine its reputation and its capacity to genuinely contribute to regional development. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can fully align its operational practices with its aspirational mission, solidifying its role as a benchmark for academic excellence and social responsibility in Peru.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.553, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.132. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. The institution's processes appear more rigorous than the national standard, effectively mitigating the risks associated with this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate suggests strong governance that prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring that collaborative credit is transparent and appropriately assigned.
With a Z-score of 1.864, the institution significantly exceeds the already high national average of 0.931, signaling a critical vulnerability. This situation represents a global red flag, as the university not only reflects a compromised national context but actively leads in this high-risk metric. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not just about isolated errors; it points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its academic reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.988 is higher than the national average of 0.834, indicating a high level of exposure to this risk. This suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.805 is at a significant risk level, amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.300. This accentuation of risk is a critical alert regarding the institution's due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals indicates that a significant part of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.127, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.329. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Although extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this signal suggests a need for review before it escalates. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship that could dilute individual responsibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.004, a value substantially higher than the national average of 0.657. This high exposure indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaboration for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a critical risk to sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely exogenous and dependent, rather than structurally embedded. This finding invites a deep reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a very low risk in this area, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.639. This result reflects a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with a healthy national standard. This is a clear strength, indicating a commendable balance between quantity and quality in its research output. The data suggests the institution successfully avoids the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.242, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and confirming 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 is well below the national average of -0.212. This excellent result indicates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in harmony with the national standard. It suggests that the university's researchers are focused on producing substantive work rather than artificially inflating productivity. This responsible practice avoids data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units. By prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume, the institution contributes to a healthier scientific ecosystem and upholds the integrity of its research.
