| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
5.906 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.413 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.848 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.800 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.655 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico da Guarda presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.518 reflecting a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding performance in core research practices, showing very low risk in areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications. This solid foundation of integrity is, however, contrasted by two significant risk alerts: an unusually high rate of multiple affiliations and a pronounced gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. The institution's thematic strengths, particularly its national rankings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (13th) and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (18th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a strong base for growth. Nevertheless, the identified risks directly challenge its mission to provide "highly qualified training" and foster "accredited collaborations," as they suggest that its current collaborative model may prioritize credit acquisition over the development of sustainable, internal scientific leadership. To ensure long-term success and fully align with its mission, the institution is advised to leverage its robust integrity culture to strategically re-evaluate its collaboration policies, focusing on building genuine internal capacity and ensuring its partnerships translate into sovereign scientific impact.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.906, a value that indicates a significant risk and starkly contrasts with the national average of 1.931. This suggests that the center not only participates in but significantly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national scientific system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the disproportionately high rate at the institution serves as a critical alert. This pattern may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than reflecting purely organic collaboration, a practice that could dilute the institution's unique scientific identity and misrepresent its contribution to research outputs.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates a very low risk in retracted publications, a performance that is well-aligned with Portugal's low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.112). This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy and reliable research environment. Retractions can be complex, but a rate well below the average suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance is a positive indicator of a strong integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible oversight prevent the systemic failures that can lead to post-publication corrections.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, positioning it as an exemplar that avoids the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.134). This demonstrates a clear disconnection from potentially insular citation practices prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate confirms that its work is validated by broad external scrutiny, not within an internal 'echo chamber.' This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global scientific community, mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.848, placing it at a medium risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.113. This finding suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.800, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score of -0.083). This prudent approach to authorship indicates that the institution manages its collaborative processes with greater control than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this controlled rate suggests the institution is effectively mitigating the risk of author list inflation outside of those contexts. This helps preserve individual accountability and transparency, reinforcing a culture where authorship is earned through significant contribution rather than honorary or political considerations.
The institution's Z-score of 4.655 is a significant risk indicator, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.004. This atypical result requires a deep integrity assessment. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a critical sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not built upon its own structural capacity. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk and a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.111). This result demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics related to extreme productivity observed in its environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional balance between the quantity and quality of research output. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low risk level, successfully isolating itself from the medium-risk practices prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.290). This indicates a commendable commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent, external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving genuine global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.073). This indicates that the institution's research culture does not engage in the practice of data fragmentation. A low rate of redundant output signals a commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into 'minimal publishable units.' This approach upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and shows respect for the academic review system by prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over sheer volume.
