| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.659 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.959 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.225 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.842 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.013 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Universidade do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.205 that indicates a performance generally aligned with or superior to national standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas promoting external validation and research quality, with very low risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These results reflect a solid culture of academic ethics. However, strategic attention is required for two medium-risk indicators: a high Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a significant Gap between the impact of its total output and that led by its own researchers, both of which exceed national averages. These vulnerabilities could challenge the institution's mission to foster sustainable development through its own scientific capacity. The University's strong positioning in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation to address these challenges. To fully align with its mission of forming "competent, critical and creative professionals," it is recommended that the institution leverage its integrity strengths to develop policies that build internal research leadership and ensure that collaborative practices reinforce, rather than dilute, its unique institutional identity and contribution.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.659, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk context, this score indicates a high exposure to the vulnerabilities associated with this practice. The institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers across Brazil. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This pattern warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that collaborative affiliations genuinely reflect substantive contributions and do not compromise the clarity of institutional accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is notably lower than the national average of -0.094. This result suggests that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average is a positive indicator of effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor and responsible supervision likely prevent the systemic errors or malpractice that can lead to retractions, reinforcing the institution's commitment to reliable scientific output.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.959, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.385. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this exceptionally low rate indicates that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, successfully avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers.' This strong external focus mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that the institution's academic influence is earned through global recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.225 is almost identical to the national average of -0.231, placing it in a state of statistical normality. This alignment indicates that the risk level associated with publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that the university's researchers are exercising a standard level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively managing the risk of channeling scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This performance is consistent with national practices and does not represent a specific area of vulnerability.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.842, the institution shows a prudent profile that is considerably more rigorous than the national average of -0.212. This lower score within a low-risk context suggests that the university's authorship practices are well-governed. The data indicates a healthy ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency, effectively mitigating the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of a contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 2.013 is exceptionally high compared to the national average of 0.199, signaling a significant area of exposure. While both operate in a medium-risk environment, the university is far more prone to this specific alert. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is notable, its scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be structural. This high value points to a critical sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, surpassing the country's already low-risk average of -0.739. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, is a strong positive finding. It suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output. This result indicates that the university effectively avoids the potential imbalances associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.839. This is a clear indicator of preventive isolation, where the university's practices diverge positively from the national trend. By not relying heavily on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external validation ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, enhancing its global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' that bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186, which is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.203. This excellent result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is in line with the secure national environment. This performance indicates a strong institutional focus on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics. By avoiding the practice of dividing research into minimal publishable units, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizes the generation of new knowledge over sheer volume.
