| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.777 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.428 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.008 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.778 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.871 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.938 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.903 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo (IPVC) presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating exceptional strengths in core publication ethics alongside specific, high-risk vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.415, the institution shows a robust commitment to quality in several key areas, notably maintaining very low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in its own journals, often performing significantly better than the national average. This solid ethical foundation supports its research excellence, which is particularly prominent in thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 9th in Portugal), Engineering (17th), Energy (18th), and Computer Science (19th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is contrasted by a critical alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and high exposure in Institutional Self-Citation and Hyperprolific Authorship. These risks could undermine the institution's mission to "create and share knowledge" with integrity, as they suggest practices that may prioritize metric inflation over genuine scientific contribution. To fully align its operational reality with its stated commitment to societal development and innovation, IPVC is advised to leverage its foundational strengths to develop targeted governance policies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.777, a value that indicates a significant risk level and is substantially higher than the national average of 1.931. This result suggests that the institution is not only participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying it, making it a focal point of this particular vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The severity of this indicator points to a systemic practice that requires an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than metric-driven opportunism, thereby protecting the institution's academic credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates a very low risk profile in this area, which is consistent with and even slightly better than the low-risk national average of -0.112. This alignment indicates that the institution’s quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, mirroring the national standard for scientific oversight. The absence of significant signals in this indicator is a positive sign. It suggests that responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review processes are in place, effectively preventing the types of unintentional errors or potential malpractice that could lead to retractions. This reflects a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to producing reliable scientific work.
The institution's Z-score of 0.428 is moderately higher than the national average of 0.134, placing both at a medium risk level but indicating that the institution is more exposed to this issue than its national peers. This suggests a greater tendency toward internal citation patterns. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution may be validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous impact, where academic influence is inflated by internal dynamics rather than recognized by the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and relevance of its research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.008 (medium risk), which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.113 (low risk). This discrepancy highlights that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers across the country. A high proportion of publications in such 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 severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.778, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is notably more controlled than the national average of -0.083. This prudent approach suggests that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The data indicates a healthy resistance to author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This controlled rate of hyper-authored output is a positive signal, reflecting a culture that likely distinguishes effectively between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorships.
The institution's Z-score of -0.871 signifies a very low-risk profile, consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.004). This excellent result demonstrates an absence of risk signals and aligns perfectly with the national standard. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead structural and built upon its own intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of scientific autonomy and suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity, which is a key indicator of sustainable and self-reliant research development.
The institution's Z-score of 1.938 places it at a medium risk level, but this value is significantly higher than the national average of 0.111, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This suggests that the institution is more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes than its environment average. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of 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.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk in this indicator, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.290). This preventive stance is a clear strength, demonstrating that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy present in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of -0.903 reflects a very low-risk profile, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.073). This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. The data strongly suggests that the institution's researchers are not engaging in the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This is a sign of a mature research culture focused on generating significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume, which strengthens the overall quality and reliability of its scientific contributions.
