| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.019 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.727 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.845 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.605 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.026 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.469 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.075 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.026 | 0.313 |
The National Economics University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research sustainability and governance but offset by critical vulnerabilities in its publication strategy. With an overall risk score of 1.684, the institution shows areas of exemplary performance, particularly in its capacity for independent impact, control over redundant publications, and avoidance of academic endogamy. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its leadership role, reflected in its top national rankings from SCImago Institutions Rankings in core areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (#2), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (#2), and Psychology (#2). However, a significant risk in publishing in discontinued journals, coupled with medium-level alerts for institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship, directly challenges its mission to be an "exceptional research center" and a source of "high quality human resources." These risks could undermine the credibility and global reach of its research, creating a potential disconnect between its stated ambition and its operational practices. To fully realize its vision, it is recommended that the University leverage its robust internal controls to urgently revise its publication guidance and authorship policies, ensuring its scientific output consistently meets the highest international standards of quality and integrity.
The institution exhibits a very low risk profile in this area (Z-score: -1.019), performing better than the already low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.035). This strong result indicates an absence of risk signals related to the strategic inflation of institutional credit. The University's performance aligns with national norms while demonstrating an even more conservative approach, suggesting that its affiliations are a legitimate result of organic researcher mobility and partnerships rather than systematic "affiliation shopping" to artificially boost its standing.
The University's rate of retracted publications (Z-score: 0.727) presents a medium risk level that is statistically indistinguishable from the national average (Z-score: 0.749). This alignment suggests that the institution is experiencing a systemic pattern of risk common throughout the country's research ecosystem. While some retractions can signify responsible error correction, a medium-level indicator points to a potential vulnerability in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This shared challenge indicates that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be a national issue that the University also reflects, warranting a qualitative review of its internal supervision and integrity culture.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 0.845, the University shows a significantly higher rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.192), even though both fall within the same medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the University's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a significant and urgent risk in this indicator, with a Z-score of 8.605 that dramatically amplifies the medium-level vulnerability observed at the national level (Z-score: 1.127). This critical alert signals a systemic issue in the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. It strongly suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through predatory or low-quality media, indicating an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter governance to prevent the waste of research resources and protect its academic credibility.
The University maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored publications, with a low-risk Z-score of -1.026 that is even more favorable than the national standard (Z-score: -0.822). This performance suggests that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than its national peers. The data indicates a successful differentiation between necessary, large-scale collaboration and practices like author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in this area, with a very low-risk Z-score of -2.469, far exceeding the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.112). This result signals a high degree of research autonomy and sustainability. The minimal gap indicates that the University's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, as the impact of the research it leads is closely aligned with its overall collaborative impact. This reflects a healthy model where excellence is not dependent on external partners but is generated through genuine intellectual leadership.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the University showing a medium risk (Z-score: 0.075) while the country average remains low (Z-score: -0.501). This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme individual publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this alert warrants a review of the underlying causes. It points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, highlighting risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution—dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record.
The University demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its national environment, showing a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, identical to the country's average. This total alignment reflects maximum scientific security regarding academic endogamy. It indicates that the institution avoids over-reliance on its in-house journals, which mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without competitive validation.
The institution displays notable resilience by maintaining a low-risk profile for redundant publications (Z-score: -0.026), in contrast to the medium-level risk observed across the country (Z-score: 0.313). This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. By curbing the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications—the institution promotes the dissemination of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of output volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
