Faculdade de Medicina do ABC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Faculdade de Medicina do ABC demonstrates a profile of significant strengths in scientific integrity, balanced by specific areas that require strategic monitoring. With an overall risk score of 0.036, the institution excels in avoiding academic endogamy, as evidenced by its very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. These results indicate a strong commitment to external validation and global engagement. However, medium-risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, redundant publications, and a notable gap in research impact leadership suggest vulnerabilities in authorship practices and a dependency on external collaboration for prestige. These factors warrant attention as they could potentially undermine the institution's mission to be a "centre for excellence... recognized nationally and internationally." The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Medicine (ranked 65th in Brazil) and Social Sciences (103rd), provides a solid foundation of recognized thematic strength. To fully align its operational practices with its aspirational mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage this diagnostic report to refine its research policies, ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity and sustainable internal capacity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.703, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution's value suggests it is particularly prone to this dynamic. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This high exposure warrants a review of institutional policies on affiliation to ensure that all declarations are transparent and accurately reflect the contributions made, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution shows a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.094. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a lower-than-average rate indicates a healthy and responsible research environment where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before publication, reflecting a strong institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.668, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.385, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This robust external engagement prevents any risk of endogamous impact inflation and reinforces the global recognition of its research.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.220, which is almost identical to the national average of -0.231. This alignment indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. The data suggests that the institution's researchers are, on average, as discerning as their national peers in selecting publication venues. While any publication in a discontinued journal is undesirable, the current rate does not signal a systemic failure in due diligence but rather reflects a baseline challenge shared across the national research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.160, the institution shows a medium-risk level, deviating moderately from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.212. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to inflated author lists than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other contexts can indicate practices like 'honorary' authorship that dilute individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to review authorship guidelines and ensure they distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and practices that compromise transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.799 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.199, placing it in a position of high exposure to this risk despite both being in a medium-risk category. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is significant, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as its scientific prestige appears highly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. It invites a strategic reflection on how to build internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics reflect genuine institutional leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.379 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.739, though both fall within the low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows early signals of hyperprolificacy that, while not yet alarming, warrant preemptive review. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a reminder to maintain a balance between quantity and quality, ensuring that productivity metrics do not inadvertently encourage practices that could compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk and a significant positive divergence from the national average of 0.839 (medium risk). This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy common in the national system. By not relying on its own journals for publication, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for limiting conflicts of interest and enhancing global visibility. This practice strongly supports its goal of achieving international recognition based on merit.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.431 (medium risk) shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.203 (low risk), indicating a greater sensitivity to this issue than its peers. This value alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base. This signal suggests a need to reinforce editorial policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.