| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.577 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.330 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.052 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.846 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.332 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.534 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.180 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Leiria presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score (0.033) and notable strengths in maintaining research quality and independence. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in several key areas, with very low risk signals for Retracted Output, the Impact Gap, and Output in Institutional Journals, and low risk in Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two areas of concern: a significant risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. Thematically, SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlight the institution's competitive positioning within Portugal, particularly in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Chemistry. These results largely align with the institutional mission to generate "knowledge and innovation of high cultural, economic and social value." Nevertheless, the identified risks, especially the potential for credit inflation through multiple affiliations and the channeling of research to low-quality venues, could undermine this commitment to high-value contributions and sustainable development. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the institution can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its operational practices fully reflect its stated mission.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.577, a value that is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 1.931. This finding suggests that the center not only reflects but also amplifies the vulnerabilities related to affiliation practices present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This accentuation of risk warrants an internal review of authorship and affiliation policies to ensure they promote transparency and accurately reflect intellectual contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution shows a very low rate of retracted publications, a figure that is even more favorable than the already low national average of -0.112. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for research integrity. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but such a minimal rate strongly suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms and methodological rigor are effectively preventing systemic failures prior to publication, reflecting a healthy and reliable research culture.
The institution's Z-score of -0.330 indicates a low rate of self-citation, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score 0.134). This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy that are more common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value confirms that the institution avoids 'echo chambers' and that its academic influence is validated by the broader external community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.052 for publications in discontinued journals represents a moderate deviation from the national context, where the risk is low (Z-score -0.113). This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding suggests an urgent need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and the waste of institutional resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.846 for hyper-authored publications, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This low rate indicates a well-governed environment that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -1.332, the institution shows a very low-risk signal for its impact dependency, a result that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.004). A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is reliant on external partners. In contrast, this very low score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and self-sustained, stemming from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -0.534 reflects a low incidence of hyperprolific authors, showcasing resilience against the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score 0.111). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. Extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, so this low rate points to a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, discouraging practices such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a clear departure from the medium-risk dynamics seen across the country (Z-score 0.290). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk behaviors observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review and gains greater global visibility.
The institution shows a low rate of redundant output with a Z-score of -0.180, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend prevalent in the country (Z-score 0.073). This indicates that its researchers are effectively avoiding the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining this low rate, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific record, prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over volume, and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
