| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.034 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.643 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.590 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.508 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.935 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.051 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.761 | -0.203 |
The Universidade Federal do Amapá presents a balanced yet complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.067. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and robust internal governance in multiple key areas, reflected by very low-risk indicators for Retracted Output, Gap in Impact Leadership, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. These results point to a solid foundation of research quality control and intellectual autonomy. However, this strong core is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, and Output in Discontinued Journals, where the university's scores exceed national averages, signaling areas that require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity dynamics coexist with notable thematic strengths, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 16th in Brazil), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (19th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (25th). To fully align with its mission of promoting "social, economic, environmental, technological and cultural development," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices suggesting academic isolation or reliance on low-quality publication channels could limit the global impact and external validation of its excellent research, undermining its potential to contribute effectively to the Amazon region. By focusing on mitigating these specific vulnerabilities, the university can ensure its scientific output achieves the broad, responsible, and impactful reach its mission demands.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.034, while the national average is 0.236. This indicates that while the tendency for multiple affiliations is a systemic pattern within the country, the university shows a higher exposure to the underlying drivers of this behavior. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this heightened rate suggests the institution is more prone to practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This warrants a review to ensure all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaborative contributions.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary record with a Z-score of -0.428, significantly below the already low national average of -0.094. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms are not only aligned with the national standard but exceed it. Retractions can stem from honest errors or misconduct, and this near-absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can damage scientific and public trust.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.643, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.385. This result suggests that the university is more exposed to the risk of insular citation practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential "echo chamber" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 0.590 against a low-risk national average of -0.231, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, indicating greater sensitivity to this risk factor. This score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid channeling valuable research into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.508, which is lower than the national average of -0.212. This demonstrates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This controlled approach to authorship suggests an effective institutional capacity to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in "Big Science," and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution shows a remarkable strength in this area, with a Z-score of -0.935, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.199, which indicates a medium risk. This result demonstrates a preventive isolation from a national trend of impact dependency. A negative score signifies that the impact of research led by the institution is higher than its overall collaborative impact. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is a result of real internal capacity and structural intellectual leadership, a key indicator of research sustainability and autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.051 is well below the national average of -0.739, reflecting a very low-risk profile that is consistent with and even improves upon the national standard. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy institutional balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the university successfully avoids the potential pitfalls of extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record by prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from a medium-risk practice observed at the national level (country score of 0.839). This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment strengthens its global visibility, mitigates potential conflicts of interest, and reinforces a culture of competitive validation and academic rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.761 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.203, demonstrating a very low-risk profile and a strong commitment to publication ethics. This low-profile consistency with the national standard shows that the university's research culture prioritizes substance over volume. The data suggests a clear preference for publishing coherent, significant new knowledge rather than engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that respects the scientific evidence base and the academic review system.
