Universidade de Santo Amaro

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universidade de Santo Amaro presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.045 that indicates general alignment with expected standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of core scientific ethics, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results underscore a robust culture of quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two medium-risk vulnerabilities: a high 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. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established notable thematic strengths in Dentistry, Medicine, Veterinary, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. To fully align with its mission of training "professionals of excellence, ethical... and sustainable," it is crucial to address the identified risks. The dependency on external leadership for impact (Ni_difference) directly challenges the long-term sustainability of its excellence, while a high rate of multiple affiliations requires oversight to ensure ethical credit attribution. By leveraging its strong integrity framework to foster greater internal research leadership, the university can ensure its recognized thematic excellence is both sustainable and structurally self-sufficient, fully realizing its institutional vision.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 2.788, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within the same medium-risk category, this pronounced difference suggests the university has a high exposure to this particular risk dynamic. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this elevated rate warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure transparency and appropriate attribution of credit in collaborative research.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the national average of -0.094, which itself is in a low-risk band. This excellent result shows a low-profile consistency, where the absence of significant risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. This suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. A rate significantly below the average indicates a strong integrity culture, where any retractions are more likely the result of honest correction of unintentional errors rather than systemic methodological failures or malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.810, a clear indicator of very low risk that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.385, which signals a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate confirms it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.098, while the country's average is -0.231. Both values fall within a low-risk range, but the institution's score is slightly higher, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the overall risk is low, the university shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This minor signal serves as a reminder to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure institutional resources are not exposed to reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.258, the institution maintains a prudent profile, showing a lower risk than the national average of -0.212. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' a high rate of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's favorable score suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 1.485 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.199, placing it in a position of high exposure to this risk despite both being in the medium-risk category. This wide positive gap signals a significant sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and not yet structural. The data indicates that while the university participates in high-impact research, its own intellectual leadership in these collaborations is comparatively low. This invites strategic reflection on how to build internal capacity to ensure that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine, self-sufficient research strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk that is significantly better than the national average of -0.739 (low risk). This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with the absence of risk signals aligning with and even exceeding the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's exceptionally low score is a positive sign that it fosters a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics through practices like coercive authorship or data fragmentation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.839, which is in the medium-risk category. This is a clear example of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The institution's minimal reliance on such channels demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.453 is indicative of a prudent profile, as it reflects a lower risk of redundant publications than the national average of -0.203. This suggests the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' a practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its researchers prioritize the communication of significant new knowledge over volume, thereby respecting the scientific evidence base and the integrity of the peer-review system.