| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.917 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.849 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.206 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.990 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.049 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.533 | -0.203 |
The Instituto Federal de Educacao, Ciencia e Tecnologia de Santa Catarina demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.331, which is significantly below the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output, indicating a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive research over metric inflation. Areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level in the rate of multiple affiliations—which is notably higher than the national average—and a moderate gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These results are contextualized by the institution's strong performance in key thematic areas, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Energy, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. This strong integrity posture fundamentally supports its mission to generate and disseminate trustworthy knowledge for socioeconomic development. However, to fully align with its commitment to excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities, ensuring that all research practices transparently reflect the institution's core values. A proactive focus on these areas will not only mitigate potential reputational risks but also solidify its position as a benchmark for responsible and impactful research in Brazil.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.917, while the national average for Brazil is 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk band, the institution's score indicates a significantly higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. This suggests that the institution is more prone to practices that could be interpreted as attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not merely strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to maximize institutional ranking without a corresponding contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.094. This lower-than-average rate of retractions suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than those typically found across the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a consistently low rate like this is a positive indicator of a healthy research culture where methodological soundness and data integrity are effectively managed prior to publication, minimizing the need for post-publication corrections and safeguarding the scientific record.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.849, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where the average score is a moderate 0.385. This result is a strong indicator of scientific extroversion and external validation. By avoiding the national tendency towards high self-citation, the institution demonstrates that its research impact is recognized by the global community, not just within an internal 'echo chamber.' This practice mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad, independent scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.206, which reflects a level of statistical normality when compared to the national average of -0.231. This alignment indicates that the institution's risk of publishing in journals that fail to meet international quality or ethical standards is as expected for its context and size. While the low score is positive, continued vigilance is necessary to ensure researchers are equipped with the information literacy needed to identify and avoid predatory or low-quality dissemination channels, thereby protecting the institution's reputation and research investment.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.990, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is considerably more rigorous than the national standard of -0.212. This low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests a commendable adherence to transparent and accountable authorship practices. Outside of "Big Science" fields where large author lists are common, high rates can signal the dilution of individual responsibility through practices like 'honorary' authorship. The institution's low score indicates that it effectively distinguishes between necessary mass collaboration and authorship inflation, reinforcing a culture of meaningful contribution.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.049, indicating a more controlled and differentiated management of this risk compared to the national average of 0.199. This smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity. While it is common for institutions to rely on collaborations for impact, a smaller gap indicates a healthier balance and greater sustainability. This result invites positive reflection on the institution's growing ability to exercise intellectual leadership and generate high-impact research from its own internal capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an almost complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard (-0.739). This low-profile consistency points to a research environment that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication rates can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often signal underlying issues like coercive authorship or a lack of rigor. The institution's excellent result in this area suggests a healthy balance, where productivity is not pursued at the expense of the scientific record's integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is a clear signal of preventive isolation from a risk that is prevalent at the national level (country score of 0.839). This demonstrates a strong commitment to global visibility and independent validation. By largely avoiding in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous external peer review. This practice ensures its research is tested on a competitive international stage, reinforcing the credibility and global reach of its scientific output.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.533, indicating a very low risk and a high degree of integrity in its publication practices, especially when compared to the national average of -0.203. This low-profile consistency, which surpasses the already low-risk national standard, suggests a focus on producing substantive and coherent studies. It effectively avoids the practice of 'salami slicing,' where research is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate publication counts. This commitment to presenting complete and significant findings strengthens the scientific evidence base and reflects a culture that values new knowledge over metric accumulation.
