National Institute of Development Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National Institute of Development Administration demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.234. The institution exhibits exceptional governance in multiple key areas, particularly in maintaining intellectual leadership, ensuring responsible authorship practices, and avoiding academic endogamy. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its research enterprise. However, this strong performance is contrasted by a critical vulnerability related to the selection of publication venues, alongside moderate risks in post-publication quality control and citation patterns. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the Institute's academic strengths are concentrated in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 4th nationally), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (6th), and Arts and Humanities (7th). The significant risk of publishing in discontinued journals directly threatens the credibility and long-term impact of these high-performing fields, undermining the core principles of academic excellence and social responsibility inherent to any leading institution's mission. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its considerable strengths, it is recommended that the Institute implement targeted training and support systems to enhance researchers' due diligence in selecting high-quality, reputable dissemination channels.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.814, which is lower than the national average of -0.549. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing institutional affiliations. The data suggests that the center's policies or researcher practices are more conservative than the national standard, effectively minimizing any potential signals of risk in this area. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate ensures that its academic credit is clearly and transparently defined, avoiding any ambiguity related to strategic "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing a culture of clear accountability.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.032, the institution shows a moderate risk level, deviating from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.060. This suggests the institution is more exposed to post-publication corrections than its national peers, warranting a review of its internal quality assurance mechanisms. Retractions are complex events, and while some reflect responsible error correction, a rate notably higher than the country average can signal that pre-publication quality controls may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological issues that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.360, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.615. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's ability to keep this rate below the national trend suggests it is less prone to forming 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This reflects a healthier integration with the global scientific community, where its work is validated by external scrutiny rather than relying predominantly on internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.167, a critical value that indicates a significant risk and starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.511. This finding suggests the institution is not merely following a national trend but is amplifying a vulnerability present in the system. This high Z-score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, indicating that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.124, the institution demonstrates a very low risk in this area, consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.625). The complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard, indicating robust and transparent authorship practices. This low rate confirms that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the institution effectively prevents author list inflation. This fosters a culture of individual accountability and ensures that authorship credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contributions, rather than diluted by 'honorary' or political practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -1.871 is in the very low-risk category, well below the low-risk national average of -0.335. This excellent result shows a strong alignment with the national standard of maintaining intellectual leadership. The data indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates a high degree of internal capacity and sustainability, confirming that its impact metrics are a direct result of research where its own scholars exercise intellectual leadership, a key marker of a mature and self-sufficient academic entity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, placing it in the very low-risk category and reinforcing the low-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of -0.266). This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national environment and points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This focus ensures that its research output prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contributions over the simple inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.595). This preventive stance demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. By not depending on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.553 signifies a very low risk of redundant publication, which is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.027). The near-total absence of this risk signal aligns with the national standard and reflects strong editorial ethics. This indicates that the institution's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system by prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume.