| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.276 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.780 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.871 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.859 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.768 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
The Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Piauí demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall IRIS score of -0.046. This performance indicates a general alignment with best practices, particularly notable in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths are foundational to the institution's mission to "Promote an education of excellence, directed to social demands." This commitment to quality is further evidenced by its outstanding thematic positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, especially in Environmental Science, where it ranks among the top 10 in Brazil and top 15 in Latin America, complemented by strong national rankings in Social Sciences and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, to fully secure its reputation for excellence, the institution must address two areas of moderate risk: a high rate of multiple affiliations and a tendency to publish in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities, if left unmanaged, could contradict its mission by creating a perception of metric-driven strategies over genuine scientific contribution. A proactive approach to refining affiliation policies and enhancing information literacy for journal selection will be crucial to consolidate its leadership and ensure its research practices are as excellent as its scientific outcomes.
The institution shows a Z-score of 2.276 in the rate of multiple affiliations, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. This indicates that the center is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers, even though the issue is present systemically across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential vulnerability. It may be perceived as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could undermine the perceived autonomy and contribution of the institution's research. A review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and transparently represent the institution's role in its scientific output.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.334 for retracted publications, which is below the national average of -0.094. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate like this one is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It reflects effective pre-publication review processes that successfully prevent the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a higher incidence of retractions, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.780, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 0.385, which is in the medium-risk range. This contrast highlights the institution's resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by avoiding disproportionately high rates, the institution successfully sidesteps the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This low score indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, not just internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 0.871, a moderate-risk value that deviates notably from the low-risk national average of -0.231. This suggests the center is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of selecting inappropriate publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to strengthen information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.859 for hyper-authored publications, a value well below the national average of -0.212. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, an uncontrolled proliferation can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's low score in this area suggests a healthy culture of authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.768 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.199, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as it avoids a systemic risk observed nationally. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The institution's negative score is a sign of scientific autonomy, indicating that its excellence metrics are driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not merely by strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, a rate that is even lower than the already low national average of -0.739. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's very low score in this indicator is a positive sign that it fosters a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score for publications in its own journals is -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category and in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.839. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns and risks academic endogamy. By maintaining a low rate, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, a very low value that is significantly better than the national average of -0.203. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in line with the national context but demonstrates a higher level of control. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' a practice where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score is a strong indicator that its researchers are focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record.
