| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.144 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.188 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.368 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.865 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.322 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
The Instituto Federal Catarinense demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.445. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and impactful research. These practices stand in contrast to national trends, positioning the Institute as a benchmark of integrity. Key areas for strategic attention include a medium-risk signal in the rate of multiple affiliations and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These factors warrant review to ensure they do not undermine the institution's mission to foster "innovation and regional development" through genuine internal capacity. The Institute's strong performance in its core thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Veterinary, is well-supported by its high integrity standards. By addressing the identified vulnerabilities, the Institute can further align its operational practices with its stated commitment to "citizen education" and "social inclusion," solidifying its role as a leader in responsible and excellent research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.144, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is notably lower than the national average of 0.236. This suggests that the Institute is exercising a degree of control over a practice that appears more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator requires monitoring to ensure that these collaborations are strategically sound and not attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." The institution's ability to manage this risk more effectively than its peers is a positive sign of differentiated governance.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution shows a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.094. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are rigorous and effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, this very low rate indicates that systemic failures or a lack of methodological rigor are not a concern. The data points to a healthy integrity culture where research is carefully vetted before dissemination, reinforcing the quality of its scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.188, a figure that signals a virtually nonexistent risk and stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.385. This demonstrates a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's exceptionally low rate indicates it successfully avoids the "echo chambers" and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation. This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global scientific community rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.368 reflects a very low risk, consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.231). This alignment demonstrates a solid commitment to publishing in reputable venues. The absence of significant signals in this area indicates that the institution performs strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and ensures that research efforts are not wasted on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.865, the institution maintains a prudent profile, showing a lower incidence of hyper-authored publications than the national standard (-0.212). This suggests a more rigorous approach to authorship attribution. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this low rate indicates that the institution effectively prevents author list inflation and promotes individual accountability. The data reflects a culture that values transparency and distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.322 is in the medium-risk range and is higher than the national average of 0.199, indicating a greater exposure to this specific vulnerability. This positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is significant, its scientific prestige may be highly dependent on external partners, with a lower impact observed in research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations. Strengthening internal leadership is key to ensuring long-term, structural prestige.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk that is well-aligned with the low-risk national environment (-0.739). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of a balanced research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score suggests it is not prone to dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of output.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.839). This is a significant strength, as excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and credibility and avoids the risk of using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies a very low risk of redundant publications, a profile consistent with the low-risk national context (-0.203). This near-total absence of signals indicates a strong commitment to publishing complete and significant research. It suggests that the institution's authors avoid the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity. This approach respects the scientific record by prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication counts.
