| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.872 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.996 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.602 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.834 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.940 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.298 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.829 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.987 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a significant overall risk score of 1.611. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in fostering genuine internal research capacity, as evidenced by its very low risk in the gap between total and leadership-led impact, and its effective controls over hyper-prolificity and in-house journal publication, which surpass national trends. These strengths align with its mission to develop quality education and transfer knowledge. However, this positive foundation is critically undermined by significant alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which suggest systemic vulnerabilities in quality control and affiliation ethics. These risks directly challenge the institution's commitment to "quality" and responsible "partnerships." While the institution shows strong national positioning in key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 9th in Portugal), Energy (10th), and Engineering (19th), the identified integrity issues could compromise the long-term credibility of these achievements. To fully realize its mission, it is imperative that the institution leverages its structural strengths to implement a robust integrity framework, thereby ensuring its research excellence is both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 3.872, a value that not only indicates high risk but also intensifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, where the average Z-score is 1.931. This suggests that the institution is amplifying a national trend towards complex affiliation patterns. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's exceptionally high rate signals a potential strategic inflation of institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that affiliations are a result of genuine scientific partnership rather than "affiliation shopping," a practice that could distort the institution's perceived contribution to the scientific landscape.
With a Z-score of 3.996, the institution's rate of retractions is a critical outlier, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.112. This atypical level of risk activity demands an immediate and deep integrity assessment. A rate this far above the global average is a strong indicator that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this value points to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting the possibility of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires urgent qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.602 is in the medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.134. However, the institution's score is notably higher, indicating a greater exposure to the risks associated with this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. Nevertheless, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.834, showing a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.113. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to the risk of publishing in questionable outlets compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in journals that cease to meet international ethical or quality standards is a critical alert regarding due diligence in dissemination. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources and scientific output into predatory or low-quality venues.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.940, which is well below the national average of -0.083, both within the low-risk category. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, a controlled rate like this suggests that the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship. This control helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -1.298, a sign of excellent health that stands in positive contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.004. This absence of a significant gap demonstrates a strong consistency between the impact of its overall output and the work directly led by its researchers. This result signals that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. It reflects a mature research ecosystem where the institution exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.829, the institution displays considerable resilience against a national trend that leans towards medium risk (Z-score of 0.111). This suggests that institutional control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of hyper-productivity. By maintaining a low rate of authors with extreme publication volumes, the institution fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This helps prevent potential integrity issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby safeguarding the scientific record.
The institution's very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 marks a clear case of preventive isolation from national dynamics, where the average Z-score is 0.290 (medium risk). This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk-prone behavior of relying on in-house journals observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own publications, the institution demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice mitigates conflicts of interest, enhances the global visibility of its research, and ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.987, placing it in the medium-risk category alongside the national average of 0.073. However, the institution's score is significantly higher, indicating a high level of exposure to this risk factor. This elevated value suggests a tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
