| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.641 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.503 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.651 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.365 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.757 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.517 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Universidade La Salle presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.233 that indicates performance significantly superior to the national average in most areas. The institution's primary strength lies in its exceptional control over research practices, with eight of the nine indicators registering at very low or low risk levels, demonstrating a clear commitment to quality and ethical conduct. This is particularly evident in areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, and the avoidance of discontinued journals. However, this strong profile is contrasted by a single critical vulnerability: a significant-risk Z-score in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which not only deviates from the institution's otherwise prudent behavior but also amplifies a concerning national trend. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are concentrated in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 38th in Brazil), Earth and Planetary Sciences (57th), and Energy (71st). The institution's mission to promote "excellence" and "integral formation" is well-supported by its low-risk operational base, but the outlier in multiple affiliations poses a direct challenge to these values, as it could be perceived as a strategy for credit inflation rather than genuine collaboration. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university investigates the drivers behind this specific indicator and implements clear policies to ensure that all affiliations reflect substantive and transparent scientific contributions, thereby solidifying its position as a leader in both academic output and ethical integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 3.641 for this indicator is exceptionally high, starkly contrasting with the national average of 0.236. This suggests that the university is not only participating in but significantly amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national academic system, warranting immediate strategic review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. This extreme value raises a critical alert, as it may dilute the institution's academic identity and create ambiguity regarding the true origin of its scientific contributions, potentially undermining the transparency and accountability of its research collaborations.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -0.503, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.094. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a national environment that already shows low activity in this area, indicating that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are highly effective. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, this very low rate suggests a systemic strength in methodological rigor and a culture of integrity that successfully prevents recurring malpractice, safeguarding the institution's scientific record and reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.651, the institution displays notable resilience, effectively countering a national trend where the average risk is moderate (Z-score of 0.385). This indicates that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, the university's low rate demonstrates a healthy engagement with the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests the institution's academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The university maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.365, performing better than the national average of -0.231. This alignment with a low-risk national context demonstrates a consistent and responsible approach to selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this low score confirms that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the university from reputational risks and ensures that research efforts are channeled into credible and impactful outlets.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.757, which is markedly more conservative than the national standard of -0.212. This suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this low score indicates that the institution is effectively preventing the risk of author list inflation outside of these areas. This reflects a commitment to ensuring that authorship accurately represents significant intellectual contribution, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its scientific production.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.517, indicating a state of preventive isolation from the moderate risk observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.199). This result signifies that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics seen elsewhere in the country. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, but this very low score suggests the opposite: the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and built upon its own intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of internal capacity and sustainability, where excellence metrics are a direct result of the research led and developed within the university.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.739. This consistency with the national standard points to a healthy and balanced research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's very low score in this area is a positive indicator of a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and substantive research over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a clear disconnection from the moderate-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.839). This suggests the university has established governance practices that prevent the risks of academic endogamy common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's low rate indicates that its scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, ensuring competitive validation and global visibility while avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The university's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.203. This lack of risk signals aligns with the national standard but demonstrates an even greater level of control and integrity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score strongly suggests that its research culture promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies rather than fragmented minimal units, thereby contributing robust and meaningful knowledge to the scientific community.
