| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.703 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.408 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.977 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.563 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.595 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.438 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.026 | 0.073 |
The Instituto Politécnico de Viseu presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity alongside specific areas that warrant strategic monitoring. With an overall score of 0.362, the institution demonstrates a robust foundation, particularly in its management of retractions, self-citation, and hyper-authorship, where it outperforms national averages. A key strength is its minimal reliance on institutional journals, which insulates it from the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in the country. However, medium-risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, publications in discontinued journals, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact require attention. These areas of vulnerability could potentially challenge the institution's mission to achieve "excellence" and "national and international visibility" with "ethical commitment." The institution's strong positioning in thematic areas such as Computer Science, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Energy, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid platform for growth. To fully align its practices with its mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its robust internal controls to develop targeted policies that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity and sustainable internal capacity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.703 in this indicator, which is higher than the national average of 1.931. This suggests a high exposure to the dynamics of multiple affiliations, making the center more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Given that the institution's rate exceeds the national standard, a review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaborations that align with the institution's strategic goals.
With a Z-score of -0.334, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.112, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications. This indicates that the center manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low incidence of retractions suggests that the mechanisms for supervision and methodological review prior to publication are effective, reflecting a responsible and robust culture of scientific integrity that successfully prevents systemic errors or malpractice.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.408, a figure significantly lower than the national average of 0.134, which falls into a medium-risk category. This contrast highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal controls appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural; however, this low rate demonstrates that the institution avoids creating 'echo chambers' and instead seeks validation from the broader external scientific community, ensuring its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than inflated by internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation is noted in this area, with the institution's Z-score at 0.977, while the national average remains low at -0.113. This discrepancy suggests the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with publication channels than its peers. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it indicates that scientific production may be channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.563 for hyper-authored publications, a figure notably lower than the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile suggests that the center manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This controlled rate serves as a positive signal, indicating a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.595 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.004, indicating a greater sensitivity to risks related to scientific autonomy. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.438, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is considerably higher than the national average of 0.111. This signals a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the center is more prone than its environment to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. Such productivity levels can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and serve as an alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, where the focus on metrics may overshadow the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in a very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.290. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, whereby the center does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for limiting academic endogamy and enhancing global visibility.
With a Z-score of -0.026, the institution shows a low rate of redundant output, performing better than the national context, which sits in a medium-risk band at 0.073. This indicates strong institutional resilience, where control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of data fragmentation. A low value in this indicator suggests that the institution promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the practice of dividing research into minimal publishable units, thereby protecting the integrity of scientific evidence and prioritizing new knowledge over inflated productivity metrics.
