| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.876 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.675 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.056 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.048 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.271 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.547 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.647 | 0.073 |
The Universidade Portucalense Infante D Henrique presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.494, characterized by significant strengths in internal governance alongside specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Redundant Output and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, with risk levels well below the national average, indicating a strong culture of promoting substantive research and avoiding academic endogamy. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and medium-level risks in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Engineering. The identified risks, particularly those related to potential credit inflation and publication in low-quality venues, directly challenge the university's mission to "contribute to the progress of knowledge and human development." Such practices can undermine the credibility of its knowledge production and its service to the community. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can fortify its scientific integrity, ensuring its research practices fully align with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 2.876 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.931, indicating that it not only reflects a national trend but actively amplifies the vulnerabilities present in the system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical need to review authorship and affiliation policies. The current level raises concerns about strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the perceived value of the university's research contributions and misrepresent its collaborative footprint, demanding a thorough internal review to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive scientific collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.112. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its pre-publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a lower-than-average rate points towards robust quality control and supervision mechanisms that effectively prevent systemic failures. This performance reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record and indicates a healthy culture of methodological rigor and responsible research conduct.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.675, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.134, which signals a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, but by maintaining a very low rate, the university effectively avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation. This ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.056 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.113, indicating a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to publication venues compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant 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 highlighting an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.048 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.083, reflecting a prudent approach to authorship that is more rigorous than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. By maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively promotes transparency and distinguishes its legitimate, large-scale collaborations from practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby strengthening the credibility of its research.
With a Z-score of -0.271, well below the national average of -0.004, the institution demonstrates a prudent and sustainable impact profile. This indicates that the university's processes for building research capacity are more rigorous than the national standard. A large positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own strength. The university's negative score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, reflecting real internal capacity and intellectual leadership in its research endeavors, which is a sign of a healthy and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of 0.547 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.111, indicating high exposure to risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to showing alert signals in this area. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of 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's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.290, which falls within the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for enhancing its global visibility and achieving standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.647, the institution shows a near-total absence of redundant output, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.073. This reflects a successful preventive isolation from a risk dynamic present in the country. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score is a testament to its commitment to publishing significant, coherent new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and the efficiency of the peer-review system.
