| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.053 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.903 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.197 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.460 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.357 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.238 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.438 | -0.203 |
The Universidade Federal do Maranhão demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.302, indicating performance that is commendably more secure than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship and publication practices, particularly its very low rates of hyperprolific authors and output in institutional journals, which effectively isolate it from risks prevalent at the national level. These solid foundations are complemented by a prudent management of retractions, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications, consistently outperforming national benchmarks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this operational integrity supports notable thematic strengths, with the university achieving high national rankings in areas such as Dentistry, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Veterinary. This performance strongly aligns with its mission to be an "ethical and socially responsible" center for knowledge. However, the elevated rate of institutional self-citation presents a strategic challenge, potentially creating an 'echo chamber' that could limit the external dissemination and validation of knowledge, thereby posing a risk to its role as a "dynamic centre of development." To fully realize its mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its strong governance foundation to foster greater external engagement and citation diversity, thus ensuring its regional leadership is built on both internal capacity and global recognition.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.053, which, while indicating a medium level of activity, reflects a more controlled environment compared to the national average of 0.236. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers indicates that it is less exposed to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby preserving the clarity of its collaborative contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution displays a prudent profile that is significantly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.094). This low rate is a positive signal of effective pre-publication quality control. While some retractions can reflect responsible supervision in correcting unintentional errors, a score this far below the average suggests that the university's internal mechanisms are successfully preventing the types of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a higher volume of retractions. This reinforces the integrity and reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.903, a figure that signals high exposure to risk as it is substantially greater than the national average of 0.385. Although a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation. It warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, creating a risk of endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that the university's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that warrants strategic review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.197 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.231, indicating a level of risk that is within the bounds of statistical normality for its context. This performance suggests that the university's researchers exercise a standard level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding a high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively mitigates the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.460, the institution maintains a prudent profile with more rigorous control over authorship practices than the national standard (-0.212). This low incidence of hyper-authorship outside of 'Big Science' contexts is a strong indicator of good governance. It suggests that the university successfully promotes a culture of transparency and individual accountability, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaborations and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute the meaning of contributorship.
The institution demonstrates significant institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.357, a low-risk signal that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.199. This negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is strong, mitigating the systemic national risk of relying on external partners for prestige. This performance suggests that the university's scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead, ensuring its prestige is both structural and sustainable.
With a Z-score of -1.238, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, a state of low-profile consistency that is even more secure than the low-risk national average (-0.739). This exceptional result points to a healthy research culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over extreme publication volumes. It indicates that the university is not exposed to the risks of coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' often associated with hyper-prolificacy, ensuring that authorship is assigned for real participation and that the integrity of the scientific record is maintained.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in a very low-risk category, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.839). By not depending on its own journals for dissemination, the university avoids the inherent conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, reinforcing its commitment to transparent and high-quality research.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.438, indicating more rigorous control over publication practices than the national standard (-0.203). This low incidence of significant bibliographic overlap between publications suggests that its researchers are focused on producing substantive new knowledge. This approach avoids the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units—which distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the peer review system, thereby upholding the integrity of its research contributions.
