| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
5.027 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.176 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.307 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.470 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.847 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.263 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.739 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.174. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research quality and authorship practices, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, hyperprolific authors, and redundant publications. This solid foundation is complemented by strong academic performance in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Chemistry, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a high rate of output in discontinued journals and a critical rate of multiple affiliations. These risk factors directly challenge the institution's mission to foster excellence in "research" and "internationalisation," as they can create a perception of inflated credit and compromise the quality of dissemination. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear strengths in research integrity to develop targeted policies that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is built on a foundation of complete transparency and sustainable practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 5.027, a value that indicates a significant risk level and starkly contrasts with the national average of 1.931. This situation suggests that the institution is not only participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying the vulnerabilities associated with it. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate signals a potential systemic issue. It raises a critical alert that these affiliations may be used as a strategic tool to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” rather than solely reflecting genuine scientific partnerships. This practice requires immediate review to ensure that institutional representation is transparent and accurately reflects its intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.112. This alignment with a low-risk national standard indicates a consistent and effective approach to quality control. The absence of significant retraction signals suggests that the institution's pre-publication review mechanisms are robust and function effectively. This very low rate is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible supervision prevent the systemic failures that can lead to post-publication corrections, reinforcing confidence in the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.176, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.134. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks of academic endogamy that are more prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's prudent profile indicates it avoids the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a healthy balance, the institution ensures its work is validated by the broader external community, preventing the artificial inflation of its impact and confirming that its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.307 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.113. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to 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 score indicates that a portion of the institution's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into predatory or low-impact venues.
With a Z-score of -0.470, the institution exhibits a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.083, even though both fall within a low-risk category. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a well-calibrated understanding of collaborative needs, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale projects and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This control over authorship inflation reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and reflects genuine intellectual contribution.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.847, a very low-risk value that is highly consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.004). This result strongly indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built upon its own structural capacity. The minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads demonstrates that its excellence metrics are a direct result of genuine internal capabilities. This is a sign of a mature and sustainable research ecosystem where the institution consistently exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.263 is exceptionally low, signaling a complete absence of risk in this area. This stands in stark contrast to the national Z-score of 0.111, which indicates a medium level of risk. This disparity shows a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data confirms a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This suggests the institution has successfully avoided practices such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk level, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.290). This preventive stance demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not relying excessively on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review, reinforcing the credibility of its research and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard validation.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.739, indicating a very low risk of redundant publication, which is a significant achievement when compared to the national Z-score of 0.073 (medium risk). This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution's culture does not reflect the risk patterns present in the wider national system. The very low score suggests a focus on producing substantive and coherent studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge, rather than fragmented data, strengthens the scientific record and underscores a culture that prioritizes impact over volume.
