| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.589 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.797 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.188 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.470 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.754 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.269 | -0.203 |
Universidade da Regiao de Joinville demonstrates a balanced overall risk profile, with a global score of -0.012 indicating close alignment with international integrity standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, signaling a culture of external validation and robust individual accountability. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to multiple affiliations, a moderate deviation in hyper-authored and redundant output, and a significant gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These medium-risk indicators, while not critical, could challenge the institution's mission to provide excellent "scientific and professional training." Specifically, practices that prioritize volume over substance or rely on external partners for impact may undermine the commitment to fostering genuine internal capacity. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's leadership in key thematic areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Dentistry, and Environmental Science provides a solid foundation. By proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities in authorship and publication strategy, the institution can better safeguard its scientific integrity, fully realize its mission, and solidify its position as a sustainable and self-reliant leader in its fields of excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.589, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.236. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to the risks associated with this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could dilute the institution's unique brand and misrepresent its research contributions. A review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they align with best practices for transparency and academic credit.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution shows a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.094. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a lower-than-average rate is a positive sign, indicating that the institution's pre-publication review processes are likely effective in preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions, thereby protecting its scientific record and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.797 demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.385. This result effectively shows the university is not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low value is a strong indicator of scientific openness, suggesting the institution avoids 'echo chambers' and its work is validated by the broader scientific community. This performance mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that its academic influence is earned through global recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.188, a value that aligns closely with the national average of -0.231. This indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. While any presence in such journals carries potential reputational risk, the institution's performance does not deviate from the national pattern. This suggests that its researchers' diligence in selecting publication venues is consistent with their peers, without showing any particular vulnerability or exceptional strength in avoiding journals that may not meet long-term international quality standards.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.470 in hyper-authored output, marking a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.212. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors in authorship practices compared to its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', a higher rate outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This value serves as a signal to review authorship patterns and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise transparency.
With a Z-score of 2.754, the institution shows a significantly wider impact gap than the national average of 0.199. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone to this specific risk than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. It invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity to ensure long-term scientific excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, and aligns well with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.739). This low-profile consistency is a positive signal of research integrity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's very low score in this area suggests a healthy balance, where authorship is likely tied to genuine participation, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a figure that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.839. This result indicates a form of preventive isolation, as the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed at the national level. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research is validated against global standards. This practice enhances its international visibility and mitigates the risk of using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 2.269 for redundant output indicates a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.203. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity than its peers to practices that can be interpreted as data fragmentation. While citing previous work is essential, a high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
