| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.790 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.741 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.180 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.539 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.702 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.324 | 0.073 |
The Universidade de Évora demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.161 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolific authors and publication in institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from national trends. Further, the university exhibits a prudent and rigorous approach in managing retracted output, publications in discontinued journals, and hyper-authorship, consistently outperforming national averages. The main area requiring strategic attention is a high exposure to institutional self-citation, which is significantly above the national rate and could suggest a degree of scientific isolation. This profile of high integrity and academic rigor aligns well with the university's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, including its Top 10 rankings in Veterinary (6th in Portugal) and Arts and Humanities (9th in Portugal), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of producing, socializing, and transmitting knowledge for community development, addressing the self-citation tendency is crucial, as it could otherwise limit the external validation and broad "socialization" of its research. By focusing on enhancing external citation impact, the Universidade de Évora can further solidify its reputation for excellence and social responsibility, leveraging its strong integrity foundation to maximize its contribution to the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.790, which, while indicating a medium level of activity, is notably lower than the national average of 1.931. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The Universidade de Évora's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers points towards effective internal governance that balances collaborative engagement with clear institutional attribution, mitigating the risk of "affiliation shopping" more effectively than the surrounding environment.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, performing more rigorously than the national standard (-0.112). This prudent profile indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average suggests that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a concern. This performance is a strong signal of a healthy integrity culture, where methodological rigor is prioritized, and the processes in place are successful in preventing the need for post-publication corrections on a large scale.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.741, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure as it is considerably above the national average of 0.134. This disparity suggests the institution is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber.' This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, a vulnerability that warrants strategic review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.180 is in the low-risk category and reflects a more prudent approach than the national average of -0.113. This indicates that the university's researchers exercise greater rigor and due diligence in selecting dissemination channels than their national counterparts. A low proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a positive sign, suggesting that the institution is effectively avoiding the reputational risks associated with channeling scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This demonstrates strong information literacy and a commitment to investing resources in high-quality, sustainable publication venues.
With a Z-score of -0.539, the university maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is significantly below the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile suggests a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's low score is a positive indicator that its research culture promotes meaningful contributions and clear responsibility, effectively avoiding practices such as 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.702, a low-risk value that is substantially better than the national average of -0.004. This prudent profile, reflected in a negative gap, is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and internal capacity. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. In contrast, this result suggests that the Universidade de Évora's scientific excellence is structural and driven by its own research, demonstrating a sustainable model where impact is generated from within rather than being primarily imported through collaboration.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.111). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk patterns present in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent performance in this area points to a well-balanced academic culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.290. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university's practices diverge positively from the national trend. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's commitment to publishing in external venues demonstrates a focus on global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its scientific production is judged by international standards rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.324 indicates a low rate of redundant output, showcasing institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend seen across the country (0.073). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score demonstrates a commitment to publishing complete and significant new knowledge, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record and avoiding an undue burden on the peer-review system.
