| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.817 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.691 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.283 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.490 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.156 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.513 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.535 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.113 | 0.073 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.044, Egas Moniz Cooperativa de Ensino Superior demonstrates a robust and healthy scientific profile, characterized by strong internal governance and a commitment to ethical research practices. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in several key areas, with very low risk signals for retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. These strengths point to effective quality control mechanisms and a culture of seeking external validation. However, strategic attention is required for two specific vulnerabilities: a significant risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium risk related to the gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's scientific excellence is clearly concentrated in areas that align with its mission, holding top national rankings in Dentistry, Veterinary, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While these thematic strengths are a testament to its commitment to "improving health conditions for the global society," the identified risks could challenge the perception of its contribution to the "advance in knowledge." An over-reliance on multiple affiliations and external leadership for impact may suggest that its excellence is not yet fully autonomous, potentially undermining its mission of fostering genuine learning and discovery. It is therefore recommended that the institution leverages its solid integrity foundation to develop targeted policies that refine its collaboration strategies and bolster internal research leadership, ensuring its operational practices fully reflect its ambitious and socially responsible mission.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.817, a value significantly higher than the national average of 1.931. This result indicates that the institution not only reflects but substantially amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This significant value constitutes a critical alert, suggesting an urgent need to review collaboration and affiliation policies to ensure they represent genuine scientific partnerships rather than a mechanism for artificially boosting institutional metrics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.691, compared to the national average of -0.112. This demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals, a performance that aligns with the low-risk standard observed nationally. A very low rate of retracted output is a positive indicator, suggesting that the institution's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are robust and effective. This result points to a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to post-publication corrections.
With a Z-score of -1.283, the institution operates in stark contrast to the national average of 0.134. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics related to self-citation that are more common in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate indicates that it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This commitment to external validation strengthens its academic influence, ensuring its impact is driven by global community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.490 is well below the national average of -0.113, indicating a consistent low-risk profile that is in line with the national standard. This absence of signals suggests that the institution exercises strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. By avoiding journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively protects its reputational integrity and ensures its scientific resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.156 is 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. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this controlled rate indicates a healthy awareness of the risks of author list inflation. The data suggests the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.513, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.004, which shows no such risk. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.535, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.111). This suggests that institutional control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures that can lead to hyperprolificity. While high productivity can be legitimate, the institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.290. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, whereby the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics associated with in-house publishing that are more common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.113 indicates a low-risk profile, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.073. This suggests that the institution has effective controls in place to mitigate the practice of 'salami slicing,' a risk more visible within the national system. A low rate of redundant output indicates a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, thus upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
