| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.872 | 0.236 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.947 | 0.385 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.421 | -0.231 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.649 | -0.212 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.111 | 0.199 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.739 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.839 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.232 | -0.203 |
The Centro de Educacao em Saude Abram Szajman demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.248 indicating performance slightly above the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional autonomy and ethical publication practices, evidenced by very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals. A standout achievement is the negative gap in leadership impact, which confirms that research led by the institution's own authors is more impactful than its collaborative work—a clear sign of scientific maturity and sustainability. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its research activities, particularly in its key thematic area of Medicine, where it ranks 101st in Brazil according to SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, two key vulnerabilities require strategic attention: a significant rate of multiple affiliations and a medium rate of redundant publications. While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, these risks could undermine a commitment to excellence and transparency by suggesting a focus on metric inflation over substantive scientific contribution. The strategic recommendation is to leverage the institution's clear strengths as a basis for targeted interventions, specifically by reviewing authorship and affiliation policies to address the identified vulnerabilities and solidify its position as a leader in scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.872 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.236. This result suggests that the center is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying a vulnerability present in the Brazilian scientific system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where affiliations are used to maximize visibility rather than to represent substantive collaboration. This practice warrants an urgent review of institutional policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to meaningful and transparent contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution displays a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing better than the national average of -0.094. This indicates that the center manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify the responsible correction of unintentional errors, a consistently low rate suggests that the mechanisms for supervision and methodological rigor prior to publication are functioning effectively. This result reinforces a culture of integrity and reliability in the institution's scientific output.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.947, which contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.385. This finding points to a commendable level of preventive isolation, where the center avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader international scientific community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This signifies strong external engagement and suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on global recognition, not on endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.421 for output in discontinued journals is well below the national average of -0.231, reflecting low-profile consistency in its publication practices. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards. This practice protects the institution's reputation and ensures that its scientific resources are invested in credible and impactful venues.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -0.649 that is notably lower than the national average of -0.212. This suggests that the center manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, a low rate outside these contexts indicates healthy practices that uphold individual accountability and transparency. This result suggests the institution is effectively avoiding issues like author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, thereby preserving the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution achieves an outstanding result in this indicator, with a Z-score of -2.111 that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.199. This demonstrates a powerful form of preventive isolation from the national trend of dependency on external partners for impact. A highly negative score signifies that the research led by the institution's own authors is substantially more impactful than its collaborative output. This is a clear indicator of scientific autonomy and structural strength, suggesting that the institution's prestige is driven by genuine internal capacity rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.739, the institution shows a consistent and low-risk profile regarding hyperprolific authors. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with a healthy national standard and reinforces the institution's commitment to quality over quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low indicator suggests the institution fosters an environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is significantly lower than the national average of 0.839, indicating a clear preventive isolation from the risks of academic endogamy. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its research by demonstrating a commitment to external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of 0.232 for redundant output indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at -0.203. This suggests the center shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A medium-level alert in this area points to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. This signal warrants a review of publication guidelines to ensure that research is disseminated in a manner that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
