| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.646 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.228 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.267 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.425 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.531 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.143 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.056 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.339 | 0.073 |
Universidade de Lisboa demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.174. This performance is anchored in commendable control over key operational areas, particularly in avoiding discontinued journals and managing hyperprolific authorship, where the institution shows greater resilience than the national context. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by moderate-risk signals in several indicators, most notably in institutional self-citation, redundant output, and hyper-authored publications, where the university shows higher exposure than the national average. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, require strategic attention. The institution's outstanding leadership, confirmed by SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it at the forefront in Portugal and Ibero-America in crucial fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Engineering, is undeniable. To fully align with its mission of reinforcing knowledge for societal progress, it is vital to address these integrity risks. Practices that could be perceived as inflating impact or productivity without sufficient external validation may undermine the long-term credibility of its excellent research. By proactively refining its governance mechanisms in these specific areas, Universidade de Lisboa can ensure its scientific output is not only prolific and highly ranked but also unimpeachably transparent and globally trusted, thereby solidifying its role as a beacon of knowledge and culture.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.646, a moderate value that is slightly below the national average of 1.931. This indicates that while the university participates in the national trend of multiple affiliations, it does so with more moderation than its peers. This differentiated management suggests a degree of control over a practice that, while often legitimate for fostering collaboration, can carry risks. An over-reliance on multiple affiliations can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The university's contained approach helps mitigate these risks, maintaining a healthier balance between collaborative engagement and clear institutional accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the university's rate of retractions is low and statistically normal, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.112. This minimal signal suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. Retractions are complex events, and while a low rate is positive, the slight increase compared to a very low national baseline indicates that it is crucial to maintain and reinforce pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Ensuring these systems are robust will prevent any potential escalation and uphold the institution's commitment to a culture of integrity and methodological rigor.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.228, which, while within the medium risk band, is notably higher than the national average of 0.134. This suggests the institution has a greater propensity for this practice compared to its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential risk of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This high exposure warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broad recognition from the global community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.267, a very low value that is significantly better than the national average of -0.113. This prudent profile demonstrates that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. It reflects effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and a strong defense against predatory or low-quality publishing practices. By successfully avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects its reputation and ensures its research resources are invested in credible and impactful outlets.
With a Z-score of 0.425, the institution shows a medium level of risk in hyper-authorship, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.083. This indicates a greater sensitivity to factors that can lead to inflated author lists. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their appearance outside these contexts can signal a dilution of individual accountability. For the university, this serves as a signal to review authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorships, ensuring transparency and responsibility in crediting contributions.
The university's Z-score of 0.531 places it in the medium risk category, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.004). This positive gap suggests that the institution's overall citation impact is significantly more dependent on externally-led collaborations than is typical for the country. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are a result of its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or are primarily driven by strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -0.143 indicates a low risk of hyperprolific authors, showcasing institutional resilience against a national context that shows a medium risk (Z-score of 0.111). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures that may lead to this phenomenon elsewhere. By maintaining low levels of extreme individual publication volumes, the institution successfully avoids the associated risks, such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The university has a Z-score of 0.056, a moderate value that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.290. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's controlled use of its own journals mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures that its scientific production is predominantly validated through independent external peer review, thus reinforcing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.339, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure, as it is significantly above the national average of 0.073. This suggests the university is more prone to publishing practices that may involve data fragmentation. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can be a sign of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This high value serves as an alert to review publication strategies to ensure they prioritize the dissemination of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
