| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.004 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.850 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.162 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.404 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.396 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Universidade Feevale demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.422, indicating performance that surpasses the national benchmark. The institution exhibits exceptional control in critical areas such as Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output, all of which register at very low risk levels. Areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk level in the Gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research, and a similar risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. These integrity indicators support the institution's recognized strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds prominent national positions in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Arts and Humanities; and Veterinary. This strong integrity foundation is fundamental to its mission of promoting knowledge and contributing to societal development. However, the identified dependency on external research leadership could, in the long term, challenge the goal of 'integral formation' and the development of autonomous knowledge production. Overall, the results point to a healthy and responsible research ecosystem. By addressing the identified vulnerabilities, Universidade Feevale can further solidify its role as a leader in ethical and impactful research, fully aligning its operational practices with its stated mission.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.004, within the medium risk band, similar to the national average of 0.236. However, the university's value is significantly lower, suggesting a differentiated management approach that effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. By maintaining a lower rate than its national peers, Universidade Feevale demonstrates better control over this practice, reducing the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with greater transparency and justification.
Universidade Feevale shows a Z-score of -0.400, indicating a very low risk of retracted publications, which is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.094). This absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national environment, suggesting that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest error correction. However, a low rate like the one observed here is a positive sign, indicating that systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or a lack of methodological rigor are not present, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the institution's research culture.
With a Z-score of -0.850, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, contrasting sharply with the national context, which shows a medium risk level (Z-score of 0.385). This result indicates a clear preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's very low rate signals a robust integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' where an institution might validate its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This performance strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.162 is in the low-risk category, as is the country's average of -0.231. However, the institution's score is slightly higher than the national benchmark, pointing to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current value suggests that while the issue is not systemic, a small portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international standards, which could expose the institution to reputational risks. This highlights a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.404, the institution maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.212), which is also at a low-risk level. This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices more conservatively than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a low score outside these fields is a positive sign. It suggests that the institution is effectively avoiding author list inflation, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency and steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.396 in this indicator, a value notably higher than the national average of 0.199, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests that the institution is more exposed than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for achieving high-impact research. It is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact; however, a very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. The current value suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a very low risk in this area, demonstrating a strong alignment with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.739). This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's research environment does not foster the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. A low value in this indicator is a healthy sign, suggesting the absence of practices like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' driven by hyperprolific individuals. It points to a balanced culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of publications.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a practice that represents a medium-level risk for the country (Z-score of 0.839). This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's low score is a strong indicator that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, avoiding academic endogamy and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.186, a very low-risk value that is highly consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.203). The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, indicating robust editorial policies and ethical oversight. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score suggests that its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over artificially increasing their output, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
