| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.357 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.075 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.830 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.027 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.023 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.357 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.235 | -0.203 |
The Universidade Federal de Roraima demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.200. The institution exhibits significant strengths in fostering an open and externally validated research culture, with exceptionally low risks in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results indicate a strong foundation of academic independence and a focus on quality over quantity. The university's thematic strengths, particularly in Environmental Science (ranked 53rd in Brazil by SCImago Institutions Rankings), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (117th), and Social Sciences (125th), provide a solid platform for impactful research. However, this profile is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. A significant risk in Retracted Output and medium risks in Redundant Output and Impact Dependency directly challenge the university's mission to "produce, integrate and socialize knowledge." These integrity risks undermine the reliability of the knowledge being produced and suggest that the institution's impact may be overly reliant on external leadership, potentially hindering its goal of forming citizens who can drive development. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its clear strengths in responsible authorship and academic openness to implement rigorous quality control mechanisms and foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.357, contrasting with the national average of 0.236. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as the university successfully mitigates systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate suggests that its governance mechanisms are effective in preventing strategic "affiliation shopping" or the artificial inflation of institutional credit, ensuring that contributions are clearly and accurately attributed.
With a Z-score of 1.075 against a national average of -0.094, the institution shows a severe discrepancy from the national norm. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While some retractions reflect responsible error correction, a rate this significantly above the baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This indicator is a critical alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.830 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.385. This signals a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate indicates a strong outward-looking research focus, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This result is a testament to a culture that seeks and achieves validation from the global scientific community, ensuring its academic influence is based on broad external recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.027, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.231, indicating an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the overall risk is well-managed, the university shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. A high proportion of publications in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This slight elevation serves as a proactive reminder of the need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing reputational risk and the misallocation of resources.
With a Z-score of -0.023, the institution's risk level is low but slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.212, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. Although the institution operates well within a safe range, this minor deviation suggests that it shows signals that warrant review before escalating. A high Z-score in this area can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This metric serves as a signal to proactively ensure that all authorship practices are transparent and justifiable, clearly distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially honorary attributions.
The institution's Z-score of 2.357 reveals high exposure to this risk, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.199. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be structural. This result invites deep reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics stem from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. Addressing this dependency is key to building a more resilient and autonomous research ecosystem.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, well below the already low national average of -0.739. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship. The institution's excellent result in this area indicates a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and substantive contributions over the pursuit of sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.839. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, whereby the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy that are more common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent external peer review. The institution's minimal reliance on its own journals demonstrates a strong commitment to global standards of validation, enhancing its international visibility and reinforcing the credibility of its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.235 indicates a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.203. This suggests the center shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated signal warns that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, indicating a need to promote research that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
