| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.511 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.112 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.380 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.775 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.114 | 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 do Para demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.170. This indicates performance that is stronger than the global average, with notable strengths in fundamental research ethics, including exceptionally low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its mission to foster sustainable development in the Amazon. The institution's thematic leadership, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science, is well-aligned with this regional commitment. However, to fully realize its mission of promoting excellence and innovation, strategic attention is required for medium-risk areas such as the high rate of multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals. Addressing these vulnerabilities will ensure that the institution's operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated values, reinforcing its role as a beacon of responsible and impactful science in the region.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.511 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. Although this risk level is consistent with a pattern observed across the country, the institution shows a particularly high exposure to this dynamic. This elevated rate warrants a strategic review, as disproportionately high levels can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping” rather than reflecting legitimate researcher mobility or partnerships. It is crucial to ensure that affiliation practices are driven by genuine collaboration that strengthens research, rather than by metrics-oriented strategies that could dilute the institution's unique identity.
With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.094. This result shows a strong alignment with national standards of research integrity and suggests a healthy scientific environment. The virtual absence of this risk signal is a positive indicator of robust institutional quality control mechanisms. It signifies that responsible supervision and methodological rigor are effectively implemented prior to publication, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions and safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.112, indicating a low rate of self-citation that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.385. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk that is more prevalent in the broader national context. This low rate is a hallmark of a research culture that values external scrutiny and global community recognition over internal validation. By avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation, the institution ensures its academic influence is built on a solid foundation of external peer engagement.
The institution's Z-score of 0.380 for this indicator represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk score of -0.231. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of the institution's scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to enhance information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.775, reflecting a very prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard of -0.212. While the risk is low across the country, the institution's performance indicates a particularly robust management of authorship practices. This low incidence of hyper-authorship, especially outside of 'Big Science' contexts, is a positive sign that the institution effectively prevents author list inflation. This commitment ensures that individual accountability and transparency are maintained, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.114, the institution shows a more controlled gap than the national average of 0.199. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is common throughout the country. While a gap suggests some reliance on external partners for impact, the institution's lower score points to a healthier balance between collaborative prestige and the development of its own structural scientific capacity. This invites a continued focus on fostering internal research projects to ensure that its scientific excellence is increasingly driven by endogenous intellectual leadership, reducing dependency and enhancing long-term sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it as a leader in research integrity, well ahead of the national average of -0.739. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with a national environment that already shows low vulnerability, but the institution's performance is exemplary. This result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation. It underscores a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution reports a Z-score of -0.268, a very low value that demonstrates a clear operational disconnection from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.839). This performance reflects a form of preventive isolation, where the institution has successfully avoided replicating a problematic dynamic prevalent in its environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This strategy ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive mechanisms rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a near-absence of redundant publications, performing significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.203. This result aligns with the country's positive baseline but highlights the institution's exceptional commitment to research quality. Such a low score indicates that researchers are prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity. This practice avoids data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' thereby strengthening the integrity of the available scientific evidence and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
