Brazil: Academic Misconduct Index Country Profile

TL;DR

Brazil: P=39.75, R=18.0, Q4 (Probably not looking). Moderate Portuguese-language essay mill demand (D1=67), elevated collusion (D5=65). CAPES oversees graduate programmes without integrity-specific mandate. Limited mandatory disclosure.

AMI scores at a glance

• Prevalence Score (P): 39.75 — 23rd of 39 countries
• Response Quality (R): 18.0
• Quadrant: Q4 — Probably not looking
• Data quality: A (5/6 dimensions from live data)
• Region: Latin America

Dimension breakdown

What drives Brazil's score

Portuguese-language demand

Brazil's D1 score of 67 reflects the Portuguese-language essay mill market, which is structurally smaller than the Spanish-language equivalent. The Brazilian market is largely self-contained — there is limited spillover to Portugal or African Lusophone countries at scale. This contains the absolute search-volume signal compared to Spanish-speaking neighbours.

Collusion (D5 = 65)

Brazil's D5 score is elevated but below Nigeria (75), India (72), and Malaysia (72). Large class sizes at major public universities (USP, UFRJ, UFMG, UNICAMP) create conditions for unauthorised collaboration. Group-study cultures and limited individual assessment design contribute.

Data fabrication (D6 = 40)

The Retraction Watch signal for Brazil shows moderate misconduct-linked retraction rates per publication. Brazilian research output is substantial across multiple disciplines; the retraction rate is consistent with other large Latin American producers.

Moderate plagiarism (D4 = 52)

Brazil's D4 score is moderate. Regional Latin American patterns combined with Brazil-specific studies show plagiarism rates above Northern European norms but below the high-D4 dataset leaders.

R-Score breakdown

• Legislation: 10 — general fraud provisions only
• Detection tools: 32 — Turnitin partial deployment, stronger at major public universities
• Disclosure: 12 — limited public reporting
• Penalties: 18 — institutional codes vary

CAPES

CAPES coordinates and evaluates Brazilian graduate education. The agency's Sistema Nacional de Pós-Graduação evaluation includes some quality components relevant to integrity, but mandatory misconduct disclosure is not a current requirement. Programme-level evaluation contributes modestly to the Disclosure sub-component.

The Ministry of Education (MEC) regulates undergraduate education separately and has not introduced integrity-specific provisions.

Why Brazil is in Q4

The combination of moderate Prevalence (39.75) and low Response (18.0) places Brazil in Q4. Among Latin American countries, Brazil has lower Prevalence than the Spanish-speaking neighbours (partly a language-market effect) but similar Response Quality.

Implications

For Brazilian policymakers, the most direct levers are mandatory detection tool deployment through CAPES and integrity-specific disclosure requirements. The federal university system has the institutional capacity for systematic detection but lacks the regulatory mandate.

For employers and admissions offices, Brazilian credentials show meaningful institutional variance. USP, UNICAMP, UFRJ, and other federal universities have stronger institutional integrity practices than the broader system, particularly the for-profit private sector.

Sources

• Google Trends (2022–2026), Brazil country-level
• CAPES evaluation framework documentation
• Retraction Watch Database, Crossref/GitLab (2026)
• Brazilian higher education integrity literature
• Academic Misconduct Index v1.5 methodology

View full methodology | Download dataset

Related data

• View Brazil on the AMI scatter plot
• Read the full methodology
• See the full country rankings