Universidade Estadual do Maranhao

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universidade Estadual do Maranhao presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.201, indicating a performance that is generally superior to the expected standard. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low incidence of hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation. Thematically, SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning within Brazil, particularly in Mathematics, Veterinary, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in the rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals. These specific vulnerabilities could undermine the core mission of producing and disseminating credible knowledge for the development of Maranhão. Practices that suggest insularity or a lack of due diligence in publication channels contradict the values of excellence and social responsibility inherent in its mission. A strategic focus on these three areas is recommended to ensure that operational practices fully align with the institution's commendable objectives and strong research capacity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.843, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution's score suggests a significantly higher exposure to this dynamic. This heightened rate indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this pronounced signal warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and contribute meaningfully to the institution's collaborative output, rather than merely amplifying its presence in rankings.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous performance than the national standard, which has a score of -0.094. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are particularly effective. Retractions are complex events, but a score significantly below the average, as seen here, is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that pre-publication processes are robust, minimizing the incidence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and reinforcing the reliability of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.330, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.385. While both fall within the medium-risk category, this value indicates that the university is highly exposed to this particular risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential "echo chamber" where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the university's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 0.068, placing it in a medium-risk category, which represents a moderate deviation from the national context, where the score is -0.231 (low risk). This discrepancy indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.831 is well below the national average of -0.212, both of which are in the low-risk category. This demonstrates a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. This low incidence suggests that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary authorship. The data reflects a healthy approach to authorship, where credit is likely assigned transparently and individual accountability is maintained.

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

With a Z-score of -0.443, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience compared to the national average of 0.199, which falls into the medium-risk category. This result suggests that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic national risk of impact dependency. A low score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is largely structural and generated by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model of excellence built on genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic reliance on external collaborations for impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a very low risk, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.739 (low risk). This demonstrates a consistent and robust low-risk profile, where the complete absence of signals of hyperprolificacy reinforces the national standard. This excellent result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, suggesting that the institutional culture does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk, which marks a significant and positive preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.839 (medium risk). This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research output.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low risk of redundant publications, a figure that is substantially better than the national low-risk average of -0.203. This low-profile consistency, which exceeds the national standard, is a strong indicator of scientific integrity. It suggests that the university's researchers are focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies into "minimal publishable units." This practice upholds the quality of the scientific evidence base and reflects a responsible use of research and review resources.