| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.076 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.530 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.272 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.569 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.753 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.312 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.143 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.344 | -0.203 |
The Instituto Federal de Educacao, Ciencia e Tecnologia Espirito Santo demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.221. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in controlling hyperprolific authorship, avoiding academic endogamy through minimal use of institutional journals, and maintaining a prudent approach to hyper-authorship and institutional self-citation. These areas of excellence align with the institution's mission to promote "public professional education of excellence," as they reflect a commitment to external validation and rigorous scientific standards. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially within Brazil for key areas such as Computer Science (ranked 49th), Mathematics (56th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (58th), and Engineering (62nd), provides a solid foundation for its academic influence. However, moderate risk signals in areas like multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in discontinued journals present a challenge to this mission of "excellence" and "social responsibility," suggesting that quality control and dissemination strategies require refinement to ensure all research outputs meet the highest standards. By leveraging its clear governance strengths to address these specific vulnerabilities, the institution can further solidify its reputation as a leader in producing just, sustainable, and high-integrity knowledge.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.076 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.236. This indicates that the institution is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment average, reflecting a shared systemic pattern but with greater intensity. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a need to verify that these collaborations are not leading to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” A review of affiliation policies could ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive contributions, maintaining transparency and academic integrity.
With a Z-score of 0.530, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at -0.094. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors that lead to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for Institutional Self-Citation is -0.272, a figure that indicates strong performance when compared to the national average of 0.385. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of academic isolation that are more prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids signals of concerning 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into the international scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 0.569 in this indicator marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.231, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor. Publishing in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This higher-than-average score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.753, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.212. This suggests that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a low score outside these fields is a positive sign. It indicates a reduced risk of author list inflation and reinforces a culture of individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.312, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.199. This suggests that while the institution operates within a common national pattern, it is more prone to this specific vulnerability. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than is structurally ideal, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.143 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national Z-score of -0.739. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even exceeds the national standard for control. This very low rate indicates that the institution is effectively avoiding the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It reflects a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, starkly contrasting with the national average of 0.839. This result points to a successful preventive isolation, whereby the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed more broadly in its environment. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production does not bypass independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels, not internal 'fast tracks' used to inflate CVs.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.344, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.203. This indicates that the center is more sensitive than its peers to risk factors associated with data fragmentation. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value serves as an alert that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
