| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.556 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.621 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.024 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.625 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-3.301 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Tomar demonstrates a robust and commendable overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.045 indicating a healthy balance between productivity and responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research autonomy and quality, evidenced by very low-risk indicators for leadership impact, hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. These results reflect a culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contribution. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution shows notable performance in areas such as Computer Science and Business, Management and Accounting. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium-risk signal in Institutional Self-Citation. These outliers could potentially undermine the institution's mission to produce "useful knowledge" and achieve "global training," as they may suggest a focus on metric optimization over genuine collaboration and external validation. To fully align its practices with its stated values of excellence and societal contribution, it is recommended that the Institute leverages its clear governance strengths to investigate and mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby securing its long-term scientific reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.556, 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 but also amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate constitutes a critical alert. It may signal systemic strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could compromise the transparency and perceived integrity of the institution's collaborative network. An urgent internal review is recommended to ensure that affiliation policies support genuine scientific cooperation rather than metric inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, positioning itself favorably against the national average of -0.112. This indicates that the institution's processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard in this area. The very low incidence of retractions suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place prior to publication are effective and robust. This performance reflects a strong commitment to methodological rigor and a responsible research culture, minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to post-publication corrections.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.621, which, while within the medium risk band, is notably higher than the national average of 0.134. This suggests a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating the center is more prone to these signals than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.024 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.113, although both fall within the low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while the issue is not widespread, the institution shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals might be unintentional, but any pattern, however small, raises concerns about the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It is advisable to reinforce information literacy and best-practice guidelines for researchers to avoid channeling work through media that do not meet international quality standards, thus preventing potential reputational risks.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.625, a figure that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low rate of hyper-authored publications suggests a healthy approach to collaboration, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale teamwork and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This result reflects a culture that values transparency and individual accountability in the assignment of credit for scientific work.
With a Z-score of -3.301, the institution shows an exceptionally strong performance, contrasting sharply with the national average of -0.004. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. A negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is high, signaling robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This performance is a key indicator of scientific sustainability, suggesting that the institution's prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon its own capabilities rather than being dependent on its role in external collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.111, which falls into the medium-risk band. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality of scientific output. This indicates that the institutional culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk, which is a significant positive deviation from the national average of 0.290 (medium risk). This is a clear example of preventive isolation, as the center avoids a risk dynamic that is present at the national level. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the institution demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, and ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low risk of redundant publication, distinguishing itself positively from the national average of 0.073 (medium risk). This pattern represents a preventive isolation from a risk that is observable in the wider national context. The near absence of this indicator suggests that the institution's researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing a single body of work into minimal publishable units. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture that values impactful new knowledge.
