| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.113 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.389 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.109 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.772 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.098 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.503 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Universidade Estadual de Mato Grosso do Sul presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score (-0.206) that indicates a solid operational foundation. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of editorial best practices, showing virtually no signs of redundant publications or endogamous publishing in institutional journals, which are significant vulnerabilities at the national level. However, moderate risks are observed in institutional self-citation and, most notably, a significant gap in the impact of its researcher-led output, suggesting a high dependency on external collaborations. The institution demonstrates significant research capacity, particularly in areas like Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Veterinary, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it holds strong national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This profile largely supports its mission to generate and disseminate knowledge for regional development. However, the identified risks, such as the gap in impact leadership and the tendency towards self-citation, could challenge the long-term goal of consolidating a truly autonomous and globally recognized scientific contribution, which is fundamental to its democratic commitment. The recommendation is to reinforce strategies that promote intellectual leadership in collaborations and broaden the scope of scientific dialogue to mitigate endogamous tendencies, thereby ensuring that its excellent research output translates into sustainable, self-driven impact.
With a Z-score of 0.113, the institution shows a moderate rate of multiple affiliations, a level that is nevertheless more controlled than the national average (0.236). This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that appears to be more common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this indicator signals that the institution is less exposed than its peers to practices like “affiliation shopping” or the strategic inflation of institutional credit, demonstrating a more conservative and potentially more transparent policy regarding the declaration of academic ties.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.315, indicating a very low incidence that is even more favorable than the already low national average (-0.094). This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. The near absence of retractions points to a healthy research culture where methodological robustness is prioritized before publication, effectively preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to such corrective actions and reinforcing the reliability of its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.389 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.385, indicating that its moderate level of self-citation reflects a systemic pattern common in the country. This alignment suggests that the university operates within shared national academic practices. However, this level warrants attention, as disproportionately high rates can signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice carries the risk of creating an endogamous impact, where academic influence is inflated by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of -0.109, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is slightly higher than the national average (-0.231), although both remain at a low-risk level. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the university's researchers may be slightly more exposed to selecting inadequate publication channels. A high proportion of output in such journals can pose severe reputational risks by associating the institution with media that lack ethical or quality standards. This signal, though minor, warrants a review of information literacy and due diligence processes to prevent the waste of resources on low-quality or 'predatory' publishing practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.772, which is significantly lower than the national average (-0.212), indicating a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This demonstrates that the university manages its processes with more stringency than the national standard, effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency, steering clear of practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring that credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.098 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average (0.199). This reveals a high exposure to a critical sustainability risk. The wide positive gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, its prestige is heavily dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This situation invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a tactical positioning in partnerships. A continued reliance on exogenous impact could compromise the long-term development of an autonomous and structurally sound research agenda.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.503, which, while low, is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.739. This score signals an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the university shows early signs of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, pointing to the need to monitor for practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of publication in its own journals, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately prevalent at the national level (0.839). This result is highly positive, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, signaling a near-total absence of redundant publications and aligning with the low-risk national standard (-0.203). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The data suggests that the university's authors avoid the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach not only strengthens the scientific evidence base but also respects the academic review system by prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over mere volume.
