| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.088 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.230 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.245 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.142 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.259 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.852 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.103 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
The overall scientific integrity profile of Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, with a global Z-score of -0.161, is statistically aligned with the world average, indicating a solid foundation without critical systemic deviations. The institution demonstrates exceptional control and robust internal governance in key areas, showing very low risk in the rates of Hyperprolific Authors, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths point to a culture that prioritizes quality and ethical rigor. However, strategic attention is required for vulnerabilities where the institution's risk is medium and deviates from the national context, namely in its Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and Rate of Hyper-Authored Output. The most significant challenge lies in the large gap between its total research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for prestige. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong thematic positioning, with notable SCImago Institutions Rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Social Sciences, Environmental Science, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. This academic strength directly supports its mission to foster knowledge for a sustainable society. Nevertheless, the identified risks, if unaddressed, could challenge the mission's commitment to "excellence" and "ethical" principles. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to enhance its criteria for selecting publication venues and implement policies that foster greater internal research leadership, thereby solidifying its role as a beacon of academic integrity and excellence.
With a Z-score of 0.088, which is below the national average of 0.236, the institution demonstrates a more controlled approach to a practice that is common within its national context. This suggests a differentiated management of collaborative frameworks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's moderate score, lower than the country's, indicates it is successfully mitigating the risk of "affiliation shopping," reflecting effective governance over how institutional credit is assigned and shared in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.230, compared to the national average of -0.094, points to a prudent profile where quality control mechanisms appear more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a consistently low rate is a positive indicator. This result suggests that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a significant concern at the university, reflecting a healthy integrity culture that effectively prevents methodological or ethical issues from escalating.
The university's Z-score of 0.245 is notably lower than the national average of 0.385, indicating that it successfully moderates a risk that is more prevalent across the country. This differentiated management is crucial, as while a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The institution's ability to maintain a lower rate suggests its academic influence is validated by sufficient external scrutiny, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating healthy integration with the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.142 contrasts sharply with the country's average of -0.231, signaling a moderate deviation where the university shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A positive score indicates that a 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 suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
With a Z-score of 0.259, compared to the national average of -0.212, the university shows a greater tendency toward hyper-authorship, representing a moderate deviation from the national norm. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines where extensive author lists are standard, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as a prompt for the institution to review its authorship policies and ensure that author lists accurately reflect significant intellectual contributions, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from potential 'honorary' authorship.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this vulnerability, with a Z-score of 0.852 that significantly surpasses the national average of 0.199. This wide positive gap indicates that the institution's overall scientific impact is substantially higher than the impact generated by research where it holds intellectual leadership. This signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This result invites a deep strategic reflection on how to build internal capacity and transition from a supporting role to a leading one in high-impact collaborations.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.103 that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.739. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of the risk signals associated with extreme individual publication volumes. Such a result indicates that the institutional culture effectively promotes a balance between productivity and the integrity of the scientific record, successfully avoiding the potential for coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or other practices where quantity might compromise the quality and meaningfulness of intellectual contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university stands in stark contrast to the high national average of 0.839, effectively isolating itself from a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance. By not depending on its own journals for publication, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous, independent peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its output is competitive on an international stage.
The institution maintains an outstanding record in preventing redundant publications, with a Z-score of -1.186 that is considerably lower than the country's -0.203. This low-profile consistency and near-total absence of risk signals reflect a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete and significant research. It suggests that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. This reinforces a culture that values substantial contributions to knowledge over the sheer volume of publications, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
