| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.502 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.459 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.295 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.973 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.115 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.073 |
Universidade Lusiada presents a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.180. This performance indicates a strong alignment with best practices, particularly in areas that underscore research quality and autonomy. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths with very low risk levels in the impact of its led research, the rate of hyperprolific authors, output in institutional journals, and redundant publications. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes substantive intellectual contribution over metric inflation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a significant risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. Thematically, SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning in areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Psychology. While the institution's strong integrity performance largely supports its mission to form leaders with "ethical values" and "rigor in the production of knowledge," the identified risks in affiliation and publication channel selection could undermine this commitment. Addressing these specific vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that all institutional practices fully embody the stated values of rigor and social responsibility, thereby reinforcing its mission to build a better world through quality education and research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.502, a value that indicates a significant risk and stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 1.931 (medium risk). This disparity suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the Portuguese system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical need for review. Such a high value can be an indicator of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could compromise the transparency and fairness of academic attribution. An internal audit of affiliation policies is strongly recommended to ensure they align with the institution's commitment to ethical conduct.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that is even more prudent than the national average of -0.112. This indicates that the university manages its pre-publication quality control processes with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate like this one suggests that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical oversight are effective. This performance reinforces a culture of responsible supervision and scientific integrity, minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to post-publication corrections and safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.459 (low risk) showcases notable resilience when compared to the national Z-score of 0.134 (medium risk). This finding suggests that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining a rate well below the national tendency, the institution successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global scientific community, confirming that its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.295 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate but concerning deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.113). This indicates a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -0.973 is firmly in the low-risk category and demonstrates a more rigorous approach than the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile suggests that the university maintains sound authorship practices, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. By keeping this indicator low, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs, ensuring that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contribution and avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship that can dilute scientific responsibility.
With a Z-score of -1.115, the institution exhibits a very low risk, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.004 (low risk). This low-profile consistency is an indicator of exceptional strength and sustainability. The result demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by its own internal capacity. This alignment between the impact of its overall output and the research it leads confirms that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own intellectual leadership, signaling a mature and autonomous research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 (very low risk) marks a clear and positive separation from the national context, which registers a medium risk level (0.111). This preventive isolation shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a very low rate, the institution demonstrates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively preventing potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This fosters a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk, which is particularly noteworthy when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.290. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the center avoids a common risk dynamic present in its national environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's low score indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially using internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, effectively insulating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.073). This result suggests that the university's research culture successfully prevents the practice of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing.' A low rate of redundant output indicates that researchers are encouraged to publish coherent, significant studies rather than dividing their work into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate their productivity. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
