| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.504 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.364 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.340 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.447 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.154 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Universidade Evangelica de Goias presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.003 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional control and adherence to best practices in a majority of indicators, particularly showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. These results indicate a robust internal culture of quality and rigor. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which requires immediate attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are most prominent in areas such as Arts and Humanities and Medicine, where it holds strong national rankings. The institution's commitment to its mission of promoting "knowledge with excellence" and "truth" is clearly visible in its low-risk indicators. Nevertheless, the high rate of multiple affiliations could be perceived as a deviation from these principles if it signals a pursuit of metrics over substantive collaboration. It is recommended that the university leverage its strong integrity framework to investigate and address this specific vulnerability, ensuring all institutional practices fully align with its mission of fostering responsible and transformative knowledge.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.504, a value that indicates a significant risk and stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.236. This suggests that the university is not only following a national trend but is markedly amplifying it. This dynamic points to a potential vulnerability within the institution's affiliation policies. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical need to review current practices to discard strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” An internal audit is recommended to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to genuine, active collaborations that align with the university's mission.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, significantly below the already low-risk national average of -0.094. This near-total absence of risk signals is a testament to the effectiveness of its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. The data suggests that the university's integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the kinds of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that often lead to retractions. This performance aligns with the highest standards of responsible scientific supervision.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.364, a figure that demonstrates considerable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.385. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of endogamy present in the wider environment. The low rate suggests the institution successfully avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny rather than relying on internal dynamics to inflate its perceived impact. This reflects a healthy integration into the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of -0.340 places it in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.231. This result indicates a strong institutional capacity for due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The data shows a clear commitment to publishing in reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals. This reflects a high level of information literacy among its researchers.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national standard (-0.212), with both values situated in the low-risk range. This suggests that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than its national peers. The data points to a healthy culture that effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship that can dilute responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.154 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.199, with both falling into the medium-risk category. This alignment suggests the university is reflecting a systemic pattern common at the national level, where a portion of scientific prestige is dependent on external partnerships. This gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that impact may be more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to strengthen internal research capacities to ensure that excellence metrics increasingly derive from projects where the institution exercises direct intellectual leadership.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is markedly better than the already low national average of -0.739. This result points to a well-balanced academic environment where quality is not sacrificed for quantity. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests the institution is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.839). This is a sign of preventive and strategic governance. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over internal channels, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This approach enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated against competitive international standards.
The institution demonstrates an outstanding commitment to research integrity, with a Z-score of -1.186 that indicates a very low risk of redundant publications, far below the national average of -0.203. This performance suggests a research culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity. The data indicates that researchers are focused on publishing coherent, impactful studies rather than fragmenting their work into 'minimal publishable units,' a practice that upholds the quality of scientific evidence and respects the academic review system.
