| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.002 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.737 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.234 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.723 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.014 | -0.203 |
The Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, characterized by remarkable strengths in research ethics alongside specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall score of -0.145, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in avoiding academic endogamy, with very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. It also shows robust due diligence by minimizing output in discontinued journals and maintaining a healthy author productivity rate. These strengths are foundational to its mission of achieving "academic excellence." However, this solid base is contrasted by two key alerts: a medium-risk rate of multiple affiliations and, most critically, a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. This latter finding directly challenges the mission to "train innovative leaders" and suggests a dependency on external partners for prestige. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting (26th in Brazil) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (38th in Brazil), provides a powerful platform for growth. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, the institution should focus on converting its collaborative impact into self-sustaining intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its contribution to Brazil's transformation is both genuine and lasting.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.002, which is notably higher than the national average for Brazil (0.236). Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk context, this score indicates a higher exposure to the factors driving this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a need to verify that these practices are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” A review of affiliation policies could ensure that collaborative practices genuinely reflect substantive contributions and align with institutional goals.
With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.094. This favorable result, situated within a low-risk band, suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions are complex events, but a rate below the national standard points towards a culture of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, reducing the likelihood of systemic failures that could lead to post-publication corrections and safeguarding the institution's reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.737, a figure that signals a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where the average score is 0.385. This stark difference is a significant strength, indicating that the institution successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global scientific community, not inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international research conversations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is well below the national average of -0.231, demonstrating low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area. This performance, which is even stronger than the country's low-risk standard, indicates excellent due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its research investments are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-impact practices, reflecting a mature and informed publication strategy.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.234, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.212. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the institution's authorship patterns are as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest any unusual inflation of author lists, indicating that collaborative practices are likely appropriate for its disciplines and that issues such as 'honorary' or political authorship are not a systemic concern at this time.
A critical finding for the institution is its Z-score of 3.723 in this indicator, a value that significantly accentuates the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (0.199). This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structural. The high value is an urgent call for reflection on whether its strong excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could undermine its long-term research autonomy.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an almost complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.739. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The lack of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and ensuring that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average is 0.839. This very low rate of publication in its own journals is a sign of institutional maturity and a commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.014, which, while in the low-risk category, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.203. This score, being higher than the country's, suggests that the institution shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. It serves as a precautionary alert to monitor for practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies might be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that can distort the scientific evidence base.
