Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (Udesc) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.196 that reflects a performance generally superior to the national standard. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors and its effective management of multiple affiliations and hyper-authorship, indicating strong individual and collaborative ethics. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high rate of publication in institutional journals and an incipient vulnerability in publishing in discontinued journals, which suggest a need to reinforce policies on publication channels. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, Udesc's research excellence is particularly notable in key thematic areas, including Veterinary (ranked 11th in Brazil), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (18th), Physics and Astronomy (18th), and Arts and Humanities (25th). These achievements align with the university's mission to produce and apply knowledge for societal benefit. Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly those related to potential academic endogamy and low-quality dissemination channels, could challenge the credibility and global reach necessary to fulfill its commitment to a "just and democratic society" and "sustainable development." By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, Udesc can further solidify its position as a leader in responsible and high-impact research, ensuring its contributions are both excellent and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a low rate of multiple affiliations with a Z-score of -0.463, a figure that stands in favorable contrast to the medium-risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.236). This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a broader systemic risk prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Udesc's performance indicates strong governance that prevents such practices, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution maintains a lower rate of retracted publications than the national average (Z-score: -0.094), demonstrating a prudent profile in its research oversight. This indicates that the university's quality control processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to systemic failures. Udesc's low value suggests its pre-publication mechanisms are functioning effectively, protecting its integrity culture from the vulnerabilities associated with recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's rate of institutional self-citation corresponds to a Z-score of 0.099, which, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.385. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' Udesc's ability to keep this indicator below the national trend suggests it is less prone to endogamous impact inflation, fostering a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and engaging with the broader global scientific community for external scrutiny and validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.155, a low-risk value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.231. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the center shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is low, this slight elevation compared to the national context indicates a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thus preventing reputational risks and the waste of resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

Udesc exhibits a Z-score of -0.932 for hyper-authored output, a value significantly lower than the national average of -0.212. This prudent profile suggests the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's very low score in this area is a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.696 in this indicator, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.199. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to mitigate the country's systemic risks related to dependency on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is exogenous and not structural. Udesc's negative score is a powerful indicator of sustainability, suggesting that its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.132, the institution registers a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, well below the low-risk national average of -0.739. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' Udesc's exceptionally low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reflecting an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's rate of publication in its own journals registers a Z-score of 1.617, a medium-risk value that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.839. This indicates high exposure, as the center is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its national environment. In-house journals can raise conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This elevated score warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice could limit the global visibility of Udesc's research and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' shows a Z-score of -0.143. Although this is a low-risk value, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.203, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests the center is beginning to show signals that warrant review before escalating. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation, a practice that artificially inflates productivity at the expense of significant new knowledge. While the current risk is contained, this slight deviation from the national norm suggests a need for vigilance to ensure that research practices continue to prioritize substantive contributions over sheer volume.