| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.334 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.093 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.092 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.723 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.101 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.144 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.247 | -0.203 |
The Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.273. This indicates that the institution's research practices are significantly healthier than the global average. Key strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, alongside a prudent management of retractions and a strong capacity for generating impactful research under its own leadership. The primary area for strategic attention is the rate of multiple affiliations, which, while at a medium level, is higher than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable thematic strengths, particularly in Veterinary (ranked 37th in Brazil) and Energy (ranked 40th in Brazil), as well as in Agricultural and Biological Sciences. This strong integrity posture directly supports the university's mission to "train creative, entrepreneurial and innovative citizens" and contribute to "social, technological and sustainable development." A foundation of scientific integrity ensures that these contributions are reliable, credible, and ethically sound, reinforcing the institution's role as a driver of genuine progress. By addressing the minor vulnerabilities identified, the university can further solidify its position as a leader in responsible and high-impact research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.334 in this indicator, a value that is higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk category, this moderate deviation suggests the university has a higher exposure to the factors driving this practice. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look. It signals a potential vulnerability to strategic behaviors aimed at inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the perceived contribution of the university's core research staff.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous control over its publication quality compared to the national standard, which has a score of -0.094. This prudent profile indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively. While some retractions can signify a healthy process of scientific self-correction, a rate significantly lower than the average, as seen here, points to a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents systemic errors and potential malpractice before they enter the scientific record.
The institution exhibits notable resilience against national trends, with a low Z-score of -0.093 in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.385. This result suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through internal validation. This indicates that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the external scientific community, not on insular, self-referential dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.092, while in the low-risk range, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.231, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that, compared to its national peers, the university's researchers show a slightly greater tendency to publish in channels that may not meet international quality standards. A consistent presence in such journals can pose a reputational risk and indicates a potential need for enhanced information literacy programs to help researchers exercise due diligence in selecting credible and impactful dissemination venues, thereby avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.723, which is substantially lower than the national average of -0.212. This demonstrates a more rigorous management of authorship practices than the national standard. Outside of disciplines where massive collaboration is the norm, such as high-energy physics, this low score indicates that the institution effectively discourages author list inflation. This commitment helps preserve individual accountability and transparency, clearly distinguishing its legitimate collaborative efforts from potentially "honorary" or political authorship practices.
The institution demonstrates significant institutional resilience and scientific autonomy, with a Z-score of -0.101, which contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk score of 0.199. This indicates a very small gap between the impact of its overall output and the impact of research led by its own authors. This is a strong sign that the university's scientific prestige is structural and stems from its internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a mature and sustainable research ecosystem capable of driving its own high-impact agenda.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.144, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the low-risk national standard (-0.739). This result reflects a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding the pressures that can lead to extreme individual productivity, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, ensuring the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a sustainable research environment.
The institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.839. This indicates a strong commitment to using external, independent peer review channels for its scientific dissemination. By not relying on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous external scrutiny. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring it is validated through standard competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.247, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.203. This indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. The data does not suggest an unusual prevalence of "salami slicing," the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This alignment with the national baseline suggests that the institution's practices regarding bibliographic overlap are standard, reflecting a typical pattern of cumulative knowledge building.
