Proposed methodological extension categorizes Ecuadorian universities by research integrity risk levels, revealing significant variations.
This study proposes a methodological extension of the HES Index, a concentration index designed to characterize the morphology of national higher education systems based on the distribution of their institutions in the SCImago Institutions Rankings. The extension consists of stratifying the HES Index according to the risk levels of the Indicators of Research Integrity Risk, used as an external partition criterion rather than as a component of the index. The procedure is applied to the Ecuadorian university system, using the 30 Ecuadorian universities included in the 2026 edition of the SCImago Institutions Rankings. These institutions are distributed between the medium and significant IRIS risk levels. The national system records an HES Index of −0.406. The medium-risk stratum records an HES Index of −0.321, while the significant-risk stratum records a more unfavorable value of −0.576. The difference between the two strata is 0.255 and is difficult to attribute to a random assignment of the risk labels under the permutation design employed. The study documents an aggregate association between research integrity risk level and distributive position without inferring causal mechanisms or making judgments about individual institutions. The stratified reading is proposed as a diagnostic and monitoring tool that complements the original HES Index framework and supports the responsible interpretation of bibliometric indicators. The study also develops the concept of bibliometric hygiene as a preventive methodological approach for identifying, monitoring, interpreting, and mitigating distortions or risk signals that may affect the reliability of the bibliometric representation of institutions and university systems. This document corresponds to version 1.0 of the manuscript and is deposited as a working paper. Its content may be updated, corrected, or expanded following academic review, scientific discussion, or subsequent formal publication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodríguez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: