| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.838 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.447 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.437 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.862 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.274 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.894 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.406 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Bragança presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.447 indicating a moderate level of exposure. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in areas of research autonomy and publication ethics, particularly its strong intellectual leadership, prudent management of authorship, and commitment to external validation channels. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its mission. However, this is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, especially a high rate of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, alongside elevated levels of institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. These risk factors could challenge the institution's commitment to creating and disseminating high-quality knowledge. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution excels in key thematic areas such as Energy, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. To fully align its operational practices with its mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its robust internal governance to mitigate the identified risks, ensuring that its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 2.838, a significant value that markedly exceeds the national average of 1.931. This suggests that the institution is not only participating in a national trend but is amplifying it, pointing to a potential systemic issue. This high rate serves as a critical alert, as disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The accentuation of this risk warrants an internal review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and align with the institution's collaborative integrity policies.
With a Z-score of 0.061 for the Rate of Retracted Output, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.112. This indicates a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard the scientific record.
The institution's Rate of Institutional Self-Citation shows a Z-score of 0.447, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.134, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This high exposure suggests the institution is more prone to insular citation practices than its peers. Such a pattern can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals presents a Z-score of 0.437, showing a moderate deviation from the national score of -0.113. This indicates that the institution is more exposed to this risk than the national standard. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
For the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, the institution displays a Z-score of -0.862, a prudent profile that is notably lower than the national average of -0.083. This demonstrates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This low score is a positive signal, indicating that the institution effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. It suggests a healthy culture where authorship is likely tied to substantive contribution rather than 'honorary' or political practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.274 for the Gap between the impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership, a very low value that contrasts with the national low-risk score of -0.004. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a secure national standard. A very low score in this indicator is a sign of strength, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and results from real internal capacity. It indicates that excellence metrics are driven by research where the institution exercises intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners.
In the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, the institution registers a Z-score of 1.894, indicating high exposure to this risk and far exceeding the national average of 0.111. This suggests the institution is significantly more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. Such high productivity levels often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals is -0.268, a very low value that signifies preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.290. This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.406 for the Rate of Redundant Output, the institution demonstrates institutional resilience, as it maintains a low-risk profile in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.073. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the country. This low value indicates a healthy publication practice that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It reflects a focus on producing studies with significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics by dividing research into minimal publishable units.
