| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.717 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.220 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.217 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.300 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.314 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.021 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.482 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.935 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.066 | 0.073 |
The Universidade de Coimbra demonstrates a solid scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.245. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over author productivity and publication strategies, showing exceptional resilience against national trends in hyperprolific authorship and redundant publications. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate rate of retractions and a tendency towards academic endogamy, evidenced by higher-than-average rates of institutional self-citation and publication in in-house journals. These observations are contextualized by the university's outstanding academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top national institutions in key areas such as Dentistry (2nd in Portugal), Arts and Humanities (3rd), and Computer Science (3rd). To fully align its operational practices with its mission of promoting "critical analysis" and "responsible citizenship," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. A focus on strengthening pre-publication quality controls and fostering broader external validation will ensure that its recognized excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity, thereby consolidating its knowledge-based sovereignty on a global scale.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.717, which is below the national average of 1.931. This indicates a differentiated management of a risk that is common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's more moderate rate suggests a more controlled environment compared to the national trend. This effective management helps mitigate the risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," demonstrating a more consolidated and less diffuse collaborative footprint than its national peers.
With a Z-score of 0.220, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.112. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national standard alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This divergence indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, suggesting a need for immediate qualitative verification by management to distinguish between honest corrections and possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of 0.217 reveals a high exposure to this risk, as it is notably above the national average of 0.134. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate signals a greater tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' compared to the national context. This pattern warns of a heightened risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, a vulnerability that appears more pronounced here than in the rest of the country.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.300, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.113. This result indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This strong performance in avoiding discontinued journals constitutes a critical safeguard against reputational risks, showing that the institution exercises superior due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice prevents the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality media and reflects a well-established information literacy culture among its researchers.
With a Z-score of 0.314, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.083, indicating greater sensitivity to this risk factor. This divergence from the national norm, where hyper-authorship is less common, serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices. The higher rate suggests a need to review authorship patterns to ensure they reflect legitimate contributions and do not dilute individual accountability and transparency, a challenge more present at the institution than among its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of -0.021 is in line with the national average of -0.004, indicating statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context, showing a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact generated in collaboration and that produced under its own leadership. This alignment suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. Instead, its excellence metrics appear to result from a solid foundation of real internal capacity, reflecting a stable and autonomous research ecosystem.
The institution exhibits significant institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.482, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.111. This demonstrates that internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed at the country level. While extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the integrity of the scientific record, the university successfully curbs this behavior. This suggests a culture that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution and quality over sheer quantity, effectively preventing potential imbalances and risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.935 indicates high exposure to this risk, standing significantly above the national average of 0.290. This pronounced tendency to publish in-house raises a potential conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high rate warns of a greater risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review more often than in the rest of the country. This practice could limit global visibility and suggests that internal channels may be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.066, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a risk that is more prevalent nationally (country average of 0.073). This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effective in mitigating the practice of 'salami slicing.' By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap, the institution shows a clear commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This robust governance upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
