| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.690 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.555 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.342 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.614 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.690 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.492 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.073 |
The Universidade da Madeira (UMa) demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.024 that indicates a strong alignment with responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels and research originality, showing very low risk in output published in discontinued journals, institutional journals, and redundant publications—areas where it significantly outperforms national trends. This foundation of integrity strongly supports UMa's world-class performance in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, which place it among the top national institutions in Chemistry (1st), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (2nd), and Medicine (6th). These achievements directly reflect the university's mission to provide solutions framed by "responsibility, equity and sustainability." However, moderate risks in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors present a challenge to this mission, as they could be perceived as prioritizing metrics over substantive contribution. To fully align its practices with its vision, UMa is encouraged to leverage its solid integrity framework by developing clearer institutional guidelines on authorship and affiliation, thereby ensuring its growing global affirmation is built on unimpeachable scientific merit.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.690, which is higher than the national average of 1.931. Although this indicator falls within a moderate risk band for both the university and the country, the institution shows a greater propensity for this dynamic than its national peers. This suggests a high exposure to practices that, while often legitimate, require careful monitoring. Disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” rather than reflecting genuine, substantive collaborations. Given that the university is more sensitive to this factor than the national system, a review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they consistently support transparent and meaningful partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.112. This result indicates that the university manages its research processes with greater rigor than the national average. A rate significantly lower than the norm suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are not only effective but exemplary. This is a positive signal of responsible supervision and a strong institutional culture of integrity, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they can escalate, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.555 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.134. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk observed at the country level. While a certain degree of self-citation is normal, the national trend points towards a moderate risk of 'echo chambers.' The university, however, avoids this pattern, indicating that its work receives sufficient external scrutiny and that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics. This strengthens its position as an outwardly-focused and globally integrated institution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.342 is well below the national score of -0.113, reflecting a very low-risk profile. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This score indicates that the university exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. By effectively avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its scientific resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-impact practices, showcasing a commitment to high-quality, sustainable research dissemination.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.614, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. While both fall within a low-risk category, the institution's lower score indicates a healthier approach to co-authorship. This serves as a positive signal that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its research projects.
With a Z-score of -0.690, the institution shows a much smaller gap compared to the national average of -0.004. This prudent profile indicates that the university's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard, pointing to a high degree of scientific autonomy. A low value suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, resulting from real internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where the institution exercises strong intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring long-term sustainability and recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 0.492 is notably higher than the national average of 0.111. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While both the institution and the country show a medium-level risk, the university amplifies this trend. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This concentration of hyperprolific activity warrants a review to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, ensuring that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, marking a significant and positive deviation from the national average of 0.290. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the moderate risk dynamics observed across the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which in turn enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.073. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately present in the national system. The near-total absence of this signal indicates that the university actively discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, often known as 'salami slicing.' This commitment to publishing complete, significant works reinforces the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and shows a prioritization of new knowledge over sheer volume.
