| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
5.921 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.416 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.039 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.554 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.046 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.072 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
6.305 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 0.639, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust internal controls in these specific domains. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, most critically, the Rate of Redundant Output. The institution's strong academic positioning, particularly in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 10th in Portugal), Physics and Astronomy (11th), and Energy (12th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of recognized research. Yet, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the institutional mission to be a "reference institution at national and international levels." Practices that suggest metric inflation or data fragmentation undermine the credibility of the knowledge produced and disseminated, contradicting the core values of excellence and responsibility. To secure its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, the institution is advised to launch a targeted review of authorship and publication strategies, transforming these risk areas into new pillars of scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.921 in this indicator, a value that is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 1.931. This disparity suggests that the institution is not merely following a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability already present in the system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal systemic, strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or widespread "affiliation shopping" among researchers. This practice requires an urgent internal review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and reflect substantive contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, which is fully consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.112). This near-total absence of risk signals indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. This low-profile consistency suggests a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are identified and corrected internally, preventing the need for post-publication retractions and reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.416, which, while within a medium-risk band, is notably higher than the national average of 0.134. This indicates that the institution is more exposed than its national peers to practices that can lead to academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this heightened rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' dynamic, where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend risks creating an endogamous impact that may not be reflective of the work's recognition by the broader global community, suggesting a need to foster more extensive international collaboration and external review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.039, compared to the country's -0.113, points to an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores are in the low-risk category, the institution shows a slightly greater tendency to publish in journals that are later discontinued. This serves as a minor but important signal that warrants a review of dissemination policies. It highlights a potential need to strengthen information literacy and due diligence processes among researchers when selecting publication venues, ensuring that institutional resources and research efforts are channeled toward reputable and stable channels, thereby avoiding future reputational risks associated with low-quality or predatory publishing.
The institution displays a prudent and rigorous profile regarding authorship, with a Z-score of -0.554 that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.083. This result indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more stringency than the national standard. It suggests a healthy academic environment where extensive author lists are likely reserved for legitimate large-scale collaborations, effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation and ensuring that individual accountability and transparency in contributions are maintained.
With a Z-score of -0.046, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national context (Z-score of -0.004). This indicates a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact generated through collaborative work and that from research led internally. The minimal gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is built on genuine internal capacity. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where the institution contributes meaningfully as both a leader and a collaborator, ensuring its excellence is structural and not merely a result of strategic positioning.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national risk dynamics in this area, with a Z-score of -1.072 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.111. This complete absence of hyperprolific authors signals a robust institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By not replicating the risk patterns observed elsewhere in the country, the institution effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or metric-driven salami slicing, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a healthier research environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268, compared to the national medium-risk score of 0.290, shows an effective disconnection from a common risk in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution successfully avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an organization acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating a governance model that prioritizes international standards over internal publication channels.
The institution's Z-score of 6.305 represents a critical red flag, drastically accentuating a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.073). This extremely high value is a strong indicator of a systemic practice of 'salami slicing,' where single, coherent studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice severely distorts the scientific evidence base, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This finding calls for an urgent and thorough audit of publication practices to realign research incentives with the principles of scientific integrity.
