Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais (UEMG) presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.182, indicating performance that is slightly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, showcasing a culture of external validation and responsible authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention are the medium-risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between the impact of total output and that of research under its own leadership. These vulnerabilities suggest a potential over-reliance on external collaboration for impact and a need to review affiliation practices. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, UEMG's research excellence is particularly notable in Arts and Humanities, Environmental Science, and Medicine, where it holds strong national rankings. This performance aligns with its mission to foster development and societal integration. However, the identified risks, particularly the dependency on external leadership for impact, could challenge the long-term goal of building autonomous capacity for regional development. By leveraging its clear strengths in research ethics to address these specific vulnerabilities, UEMG can further solidify its role as a key contributor to the state's progress and ensure its commitment to excellence is built on a foundation of sustainable and transparent scientific practice.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.693, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the university's score indicates a much higher exposure to this specific risk factor compared to its national peers. This suggests that institutional practices or researcher behaviors are more prone to generating this alert signal. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. Given the elevated score, a review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions and support the institution's strategic goals without creating reputational risk.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a lower risk 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 are complex events, and a low rate indicates that pre-publication review processes are likely effective in preventing the types of unintentional errors or methodological flaws that can lead to them. This performance reflects a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to producing reliable scientific work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.031, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.385. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics commonly observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated externally and avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers'. This strong performance signals that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.191 is statistically similar to the national average of -0.231, placing it in a low-risk category. This alignment indicates a level of statistical normality, where the risk of publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context and size. This suggests that the institution's researchers, like their national peers, generally exercise adequate due diligence in selecting publication venues, effectively avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus mitigating associated reputational risks.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.741, the institution exhibits a lower incidence of hyper-authored publications than the national average of -0.212. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this low score indicates that the institution is effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation in other fields. This helps ensure that authorship reflects meaningful contribution, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.452 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.199. While both are categorized as medium-risk, this significant difference highlights the institution's high exposure to dependency on external partners for achieving impact. This wide positive gap suggests that while overall institutional prestige may be high, it is heavily reliant on collaborations where the university does not exercise intellectual leadership. This situation signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships, and points to a need to strengthen and promote research led by its own faculty.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution registers a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk signal that is well below the low-risk national average of -0.739. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this very low score is a positive indicator of a balanced academic environment that likely prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer quantitative output, avoiding potential issues like coercive or honorary authorship.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.839. This indicates a successful preventive isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent in the country. The university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by not relying on its own journals for dissemination. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.754 places it in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.203. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that is aligned with the national standard, but with even better performance. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. This very low score suggests that the institution fosters a research culture that values the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby contributing robust and meaningful knowledge to the scientific record.