| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.532 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.870 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.257 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.033 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.072 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.203 |
The Instituto Federal de Educacao, Ciencia e Tecnologia de Minas Gerais demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.333. This performance indicates that the institution's operational and ethical controls are significantly stronger than the baseline standard. Key strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Output in Institutional Journals, where it effectively isolates itself from national risk trends. This strong governance foundation aligns directly with the institution's mission to provide "quality teaching, research and extension." Furthermore, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution shows notable thematic strength in areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Veterinary, which are crucial for its commitment to "regional development." The only significant alert is a high rate of Multiple Affiliations, which, while potentially linked to collaborative development, requires careful management to ensure it does not compromise the principles of transparency and merit that underpin its mission of quality and citizen training. By addressing this single vulnerability, the institution is well-positioned to consolidate its role as a benchmark for scientific integrity and regional impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.532, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.236. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium risk category, this score indicates a high exposure to this specific risk factor. The institution is significantly more prone to this behavior than its national peers, which warrants a strategic review. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of valuable partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This elevated signal suggests a need to verify that collaborative practices are driven by genuine scientific synergy rather than metric-oriented incentives.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.094. This lower incidence of retractions suggests that the institution manages its research processes with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a lower rate points towards effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This performance indicates that the institution's integrity culture and methodological supervision are strong, successfully preventing the types of unintentional errors or recurring malpractice that can lead to post-publication corrections.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.870, a signal of very low risk that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.385, which is in the medium risk range. This result demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, as the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's higher rate points to a systemic risk of 'echo chambers'. The institution, however, avoids this pitfall, indicating its work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through internal dynamics. This reinforces the global recognition of its academic influence and protects it from the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.257 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.231. This indicates that the risk level associated with publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context and size. While a high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert regarding due diligence, the institution's current low-risk profile is consistent with its environment. This suggests that its researchers generally select appropriate dissemination channels, avoiding systemic exposure to predatory or low-quality practices that could entail severe reputational risks.
Displaying a Z-score of -1.033, the institution maintains a prudent profile, showing a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship than the national average of -0.212. This suggests that the center manages its authorship attribution with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, a high rate can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's low score is a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship practices, promoting transparency and individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.072 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.199, which indicates a medium systemic risk. A wide positive gap signals a dependency on external partners for impact, creating a sustainability risk. The institution's balanced score suggests its control mechanisms effectively mitigate this national trend. This indicates that its scientific prestige is largely structural and derived from its own internal capacity, as it successfully exercises intellectual leadership in its research endeavors rather than relying on an exogenous or dependent impact.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, which is even stronger than the country's low-risk average of -0.739. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the 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 point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's excellent result indicates a healthy academic environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low risk and a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average of 0.839 signals a medium risk. This stark difference is a significant strength. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By not replicating this national dynamic, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses potential 'fast tracks' and undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a very low risk of redundant publication, a figure that is substantially better than the national low-risk average of -0.203. This result shows low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals is fully aligned with a secure national environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's negligible score in this area is a strong indicator that its research culture values the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the distortion of scientific evidence for metric gain.
