| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.522 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.672 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.772 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.411 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.603 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.843 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
Faculdades Pequeno Principe demonstrates a robust overall profile of scientific integrity, marked by a commendable overall score of -0.325. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths and a very low-risk profile across a majority of indicators, including retracted output, self-citation, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, reflecting a strong culture of quality control and commitment to external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities in authorship practices, specifically a high rate of hyper-authored output, and a medium-risk dependency on external collaborations for impact. These challenges require strategic attention to ensure they do not undermine the institution's mission to "produce and disseminate knowledge... based on humanism and critical reflection." The institution's notable leadership, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Brazil for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (27th), Medicine (48th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (71st), provides a powerful platform for this growth. By proactively addressing authorship transparency and fostering greater intellectual leadership in collaborations, the institution can fully align its operational excellence with its stated values, reinforcing its role as a socially responsible and humanistic leader in knowledge creation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.522, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.236. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk factor compared to the national environment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's heightened rate suggests a greater propensity for practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This pattern, while reflecting a shared national trend, is more pronounced at the institutional level, warranting a review of affiliation policies to ensure they consistently reflect substantive collaborative contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.672, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record, significantly better than the national average of -0.094. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses even the low national standard, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but their near-total absence here strongly suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust and systemic, preventing methodological or ethical failures and reinforcing a culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.772 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.385, signaling a clear preventive isolation from national trends. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution actively avoids the risk dynamics observed across the country. This exceptionally low rate indicates that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through internal 'echo chambers.' This practice protects against endogamous impact inflation and demonstrates a commitment to achieving academic influence through global recognition and external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.411 is well below the national average of -0.231, reflecting a consistent and low-risk profile. This alignment with a low-risk national context shows that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication venues. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution safeguards its reputation and ensures its scientific output is channeled through credible and enduring media, thereby avoiding the reputational and resource risks associated with predatory practices.
A Z-score of 1.603 marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.212, presenting a critical area for review. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' such extensive author lists can be a red flag for author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This indicator serves as an urgent signal to investigate authorship practices and distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship, which can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.843 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.199, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is high, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This pattern points to a potential sustainability risk, as the institution's scientific prestige appears to be highly dependent and exogenous. It invites a critical reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead, a dynamic that is far more pronounced here than in the rest of the country.
With a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.739, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. While high output can signify leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's data confirms that it is not susceptible to the risks of coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over scientific integrity, maintaining a standard of responsible productivity that is even more rigorous than the national norm.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low compared to the national average of 0.839, indicating a state of preventive isolation from a common national practice. This demonstrates a clear institutional policy of prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with a high rate of internal publishing, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated against global standards, thereby enhancing its international visibility and credibility rather than relying on 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.203, showing a strong, low-risk profile. This result indicates that the institution's research culture values substantive contributions over artificially inflated publication counts. The near absence of massive bibliographic overlap between publications suggests that practices like 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units—are not prevalent. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge strengthens the scientific record and reflects an efficient use of research and review resources.
