| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
5.357 | 1.104 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.522 | -0.184 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.259 | 0.152 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.470 | -0.219 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.002 | 0.160 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.317 | 0.671 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.684 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.934 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.453 | -0.068 |
The Centro de Ecologia Aplicada y Sustentabilidad (CAPES) demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an exceptionally low overall risk score of 0.066. This performance is characterized by outstanding results in quality control and ethical practices, with minimal to non-existent risks in retractions, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and use of institutional journals. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings within key thematic areas—notably Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science—directly validates its mission to conduct cutting-edge research for sustainable development. This commitment to integrity aligns perfectly with its goal of adhering to OECD standards. However, a significant outlier in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations presents a strategic vulnerability, potentially undermining the perception of institutional credit and leadership. While this risk amplifies a national trend, it contrasts sharply with the institution's otherwise exemplary record and could challenge the mission's emphasis on genuine "cutting-edge" capacity. It is recommended that CAPES conduct a focused review of its affiliation and collaboration policies to ensure they transparently reflect substantive contributions, thereby safeguarding its well-earned reputation for excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 5.357, a value that indicates a significant risk level and is substantially higher than the national average of 1.104. This suggests that the center is not merely reflecting a systemic practice but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates, as observed here, can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This pronounced deviation from the national norm warrants an urgent internal review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to meaningful scientific contributions and do not dilute the institution's unique identity or misrepresent its role in research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.522, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.184. This low-profile consistency indicates that the center's quality control mechanisms are exceptionally effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, this near-zero rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust enough to prevent systemic failures. This result is a strong testament to a culture of integrity and methodological rigor, aligning with the highest standards of scientific practice.
The institution's Z-score of -0.259 is well within the low-risk range, contrasting favorably with the country's medium-risk score of 0.152. This demonstrates clear institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but the center's low rate indicates it effectively avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers.' This practice ensures that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.470, a very low value that is superior to the national average of -0.219. This low-profile consistency highlights a commendable diligence in the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert, but this result confirms that the institution is effectively protecting its research from being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This proactive stance prevents reputational damage and ensures that institutional resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.002, while categorized as a medium risk, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.160. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the center successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Although extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high score can indicate author list inflation. The institution's more controlled value suggests it is more adept than its national peers at distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby promoting greater individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.317, the institution shows a low-risk profile that stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.671. This result signals strong institutional resilience, indicating that the center's scientific prestige is structural and self-generated, not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap often suggests that excellence metrics are derived from collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. The institution's negative score is a powerful indicator of its internal capacity to lead high-impact research, confirming that its scientific influence is both authentic and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the already low-risk national average of -0.684. This demonstrates a clear and consistent commitment to research quality over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This institution's very low score indicates an environment that effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, fostering a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk and a significant departure from the national medium-risk average of 0.934. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center consciously avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This strategy enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.453, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is notably more rigorous than the national standard (-0.068). This prudent approach suggests that the center manages its publication processes with greater discipline than its peers. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's low score is evidence of a commitment to publishing complete and significant new knowledge, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
