| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.517 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.879 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.883 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.545 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.428 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.347 | -0.203 |
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.014 that indicates a performance aligned with global expectations. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a robust integrity culture in core areas, particularly in its very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals. These results suggest a strong commitment to external validation and a healthy balance between productivity and quality. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high dependency on external collaborators for impact, a tendency to publish in discontinued journals, and elevated rates of multiple affiliations and redundant publications. The institution's thematic strengths, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are most prominent in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 21st in Brazil), Energy (25th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (27th). To safeguard and enhance these areas of excellence, it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices that suggest a dependency on external leadership or the use of low-quality dissemination channels could undermine the institution's long-term reputational standing and its mission to achieve genuine academic excellence and social responsibility. A proactive review of collaboration and publication strategies will be key to ensuring that its recognized thematic leadership is built upon a foundation of sustainable and transparent research practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.517 is notably higher than the national average of 0.236, placing it in a position of high exposure to this particular risk, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to practices leading to multiple institutional credits for the same output. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of institutional policies. A disproportionately high value can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and clarifying guidelines for researchers can help ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantive contributions and transparent collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its pre-publication processes with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.094). This low rate of retractions is a positive indicator of effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can be complex events, and a low frequency suggests that potential errors are being identified and corrected before publication, reflecting a culture of responsible supervision and methodological soundness. This performance indicates that the institution's integrity framework is effectively preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a higher volume of post-publication corrections.
The institution exhibits a clear strength in this area, with a Z-score of -0.879 (very low risk) in a national context where this practice is more common (country Z-score: 0.385, medium risk). This result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate demonstrates that it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is robustly validated by the global scientific community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external recognition of its work.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed, with the institution showing a Z-score of 0.883 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.231. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to publication venue selection than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in choosing dissemination channels. This score 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, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.545, which is below the national average of -0.212, both within the low-risk threshold. This indicates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, a controlled rate outside these contexts is a sign of good governance. This performance suggests the institution effectively mitigates the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and discouraging practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 1.428 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.199, indicating high exposure to this risk despite both being in the medium-risk band. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. While it is common for institutions to leverage collaborations, such a high value invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role. Addressing this imbalance is key to building long-term, autonomous scientific strength.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing even better than the low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.739). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates a strong balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately prevalent at the national level. Its Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) contrasts sharply with the country's score of 0.839 (medium risk). In-house journals can present conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. By avoiding excessive dependence on such channels, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice mitigates the risk of academic endogamy, enhances global visibility, and prevents the use of internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' for inflating publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.347 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.203. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity than its peers to practices involving data fragmentation. While citing previous work is essential, massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the division of a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This alert suggests a need to review publication ethics guidelines to ensure that research contributions are substantive and prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.
