| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.859 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.465 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.129 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.195 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.603 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.043 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.168 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.478 | -0.203 |
The Universidade do Estado do Amazonas presents a robust overall scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of 0.262 that reflects significant strengths alongside specific, targeted areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in post-publication ethics and responsible dissemination, with very low risk levels in Retracted Output, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and medium-level risks in Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity dynamics coexist with strong national positioning in key thematic areas, including Medicine, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Engineering, and Mathematics. The identified risks, particularly those concerning authorship and impact dependency, pose a potential challenge to the university's mission to "build scientific knowledge" and "develop the Amazon with sustainability." Achieving this mission requires not only scientific participation but also the cultivation of independent intellectual leadership and unimpeachable integrity. Therefore, a strategic focus on refining authorship policies and strengthening internal research leadership will be crucial to fully align the institution's operational practices with its ambitious and socially vital vision.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.859, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk band, this comparison reveals a high exposure to this specific risk factor. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the elevated rate here warrants a closer review of how author affiliations are declared and managed to ensure they accurately reflect substantive contributions and avoid the perception of “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.465, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.094. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive signal, indicating that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. The absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for integrity, suggesting that the institutional culture promotes methodological rigor and responsible supervision, successfully preventing the kinds of systemic failures that often lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.129 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.385, showcasing differentiated management of a risk that is common across the country. This indicates that the university successfully moderates the tendency toward institutional self-citation, avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' By ensuring its research undergoes broader external scrutiny, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting its academic influence is more likely driven by global community recognition than by internal validation dynamics.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.195) is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average (Z-score: -0.231). This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that the institution's researchers, in line with their national peers, generally perform adequate due diligence in selecting publication channels, effectively avoiding systemic exposure to media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus protecting the university from associated reputational risks.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.603 in hyper-authored output, which represents a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national average of -0.212. This atypical risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not the norm, such a high rate can indicate systemic author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is imperative for the institution to investigate these patterns to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution shows a Z-score of 1.043 for this indicator, revealing a high exposure to impact dependency when compared to the national average of 0.199. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is notable, its scientific prestige may be heavily reliant on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This signals a sustainability risk, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 1.168, the institution displays a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score: -0.739), which is in a low-risk category. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme individual productivity. While high output can signify leadership, publication volumes that challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without substantive participation, dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, indicating a preventive isolation from a risk that is present at a medium level nationally (Z-score: 0.839). This is a clear strength, demonstrating that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own publication channels. By doing so, it sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research output is validated through independent, external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility of its science and confirms that its researchers compete in standard channels rather than using internal 'fast tracks' to inflate their publication records.
The institution's Z-score of -0.478 is very low, placing it well below the already low-risk national average of -0.203. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area. It suggests a research culture that values the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity metrics. This practice avoids data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific evidence produced and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
