Universidade Estadual do Piaui

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universidade Estadual do Piaui presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.152, indicating performance aligned with the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and management of its impact dependency, showcasing robust internal controls in key areas of research practice. However, areas of medium risk, particularly in redundant output, publication in discontinued journals, and multiple affiliations, signal vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. These findings are contextualized by the university's recognized thematic strengths in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of training "competent and ethical professionals" and improving quality of life, it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as practices like data fragmentation or publishing in low-quality journals could undermine the ethical foundation and societal impact the mission espouses. By leveraging its clear operational strengths to mitigate these identified vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its reputation for excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.412, while the national average for Brazil is 0.236. This comparison reveals that the university is more exposed to this particular risk than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate suggests a need to verify that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This elevated signal warrants a review to ensure that the institutional affiliation policy promotes substantive scientific cooperation and accurately reflects contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position compared to the national average of -0.094. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to quality control, as the rate of retracted publications is lower than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest corrections. However, this low score suggests that the university's pre-publication review mechanisms are functioning effectively, minimizing the incidence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and thereby safeguarding its scientific reputation with greater diligence than its peers.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.407 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.385, indicating that its self-citation practices are in line with a broader systemic pattern in Brazil. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. This alignment suggests that the university's behavior is not an isolated anomaly but rather reflects shared academic practices or regulatory incentives at a national level. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor this trend to avoid the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where an institution's influence might be amplified by internal dynamics rather than validated by the wider global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.204, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.231. This shows a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.913 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.212, reflecting a prudent profile in managing authorship. This suggests that the university's processes are more rigorous than the national standard in preventing authorship list inflation. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability. The institution's low score indicates a healthy research culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like honorary authorship, thereby promoting transparency and responsibility.

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

With a Z-score of -0.411, the institution shows considerable resilience against a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.199). This low score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is largely built on research where it holds intellectual leadership, signaling strong internal capacity and sustainability. Unlike institutions that may depend heavily on external partners for impact, this result suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effective in fostering structural excellence, mitigating the systemic risk of developing a dependent or exogenous scientific reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 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 surpasses, the low-risk national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship. The university's very low score is a strong positive indicator of a research environment that prioritizes quality and integrity over sheer volume, ensuring a healthy balance in academic productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.839. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids a risk dynamic that is prevalent in its national environment. By not relying heavily on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, showing a commitment to validation through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.977, the institution shows a moderate deviation and greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the national average of -0.203. This elevated score serves as an alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a pattern can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system. This signal suggests a need to review publication strategies to ensure that research outputs represent significant new knowledge rather than incremental data divisions.