| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.711 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.310 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.199 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.162 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.599 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.181 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.046 | 0.073 |
Universidade Fernando Pessoa presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.378 reflecting a combination of exceptional strengths and specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust governance in critical areas, showing very low risk in retracted output and publication in institutional journals, and maintaining commendable control over self-citation and redundant publications. These strengths are foundational to its mission of providing high-quality education with public responsibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is most prominent in thematic areas such as Dentistry, Chemistry, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Computer Science, where it holds strong national rankings. However, this profile is contrasted by a significant risk in the rate of multiple affiliations and medium-level alerts concerning the impact gap with collaborators and publication in discontinued journals. These weaknesses could challenge the institution's goal of being an "internationally recognized" university built on genuine internal capacity and may undermine its commitment to "high quality" research. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in quality control to develop targeted strategies that mitigate the identified risks, thereby ensuring its scientific development is both sustainable and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 3.711 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.931, indicating a notable amplification of a vulnerability already present in the national system. This high rate requires immediate attention, as it suggests that the institution's collaborative practices may be creating disproportionate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, such a high value can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional standing or "affiliation shopping." This practice can obscure the true origin of scientific contributions and poses a reputational risk that should be addressed through clearer affiliation policies and internal review.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution demonstrates an excellent record in this area, aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.112). This absence of risk signals points to a consistent and effective system of quality control. Retractions are complex events, but a very low rate like this one is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review processes. It suggests that the institution's integrity culture successfully prevents the types of unintentional errors or recurring malpractice that could otherwise lead to systemic failures, reinforcing its commitment to methodological rigor.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.310 that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.134. This indicates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low rate demonstrates that the university avoids the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. By ensuring its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny, the institution confirms that its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.199 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.113. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.162, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.083. This suggests a commendable management of authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this controlled rate outside those contexts indicates a healthy approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" authorship. This diligence helps ensure that individual accountability and transparency in the research process are preserved.
With a Z-score of 2.599, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average score is -0.004. This greater sensitivity to risk signals a potential challenge to its long-term scientific sustainability. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, suggests that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.181 indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.111, even though both operate within a medium-risk context. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.290. This excellent result shows the university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production bypasses internal "fast tracks" in favor of independent, external peer review. This practice significantly enhances its global visibility and credibility, aligning with standard competitive validation.
The institution shows effective institutional resilience, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.046 while the national average sits at a medium-risk level of 0.073. This suggests that its control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a risk that is more common in its environment. By managing bibliographic overlap effectively, the university discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach ensures its research contributes significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence and overburdening the peer-review system.
