| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
7.749 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.728 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.803 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.218 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.185 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.541 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.805 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.073 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.653, Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politecnico e Universitario (CESPU) presents a profile of notable strengths in core research ethics, contrasted by significant strategic vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in several key areas, with very low risk signals for retracted output, institutional self-citation, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output, indicating robust internal quality controls and a culture committed to external validation. However, this solid foundation is challenged by significant risks in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a critical Gap between its total research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These weaknesses, coupled with medium-level risks in hyper-authorship and hyper-prolificacy, suggest that while foundational integrity is strong, practices related to collaboration and authorship attribution may be misaligned with strategic goals. The institution's strong national positioning in health sciences, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Dentistry (9th in Portugal), Environmental Science (10th), and Veterinary (10th), directly supports its mission to create and disseminate knowledge in this field. Yet, the identified risks, particularly the dependency on external leadership for impact, could undermine its ambition to be "an asset in the global environment" and project an image of strategic inflation rather than genuine, self-sustaining excellence. To fully align its operational reality with its mission, it is recommended that CESPU undertakes a strategic review of its collaboration and authorship policies, ensuring that its impressive research capacity translates into recognized intellectual leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 7.749, a figure that represents a critical alert when compared to the national average of 1.931. This result indicates that the institution is not only participating in a national trend but is significantly amplifying it, pointing to a systemic vulnerability. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The sheer scale of this indicator suggests an urgent need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive, transparent, and strategically sound collaborations rather than a pursuit of inflated metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.728, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.112. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment and suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This result is a positive indicator of a responsible supervisory culture and a strong commitment to methodological rigor, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.803 is a strong positive signal, especially when contrasted with the national Z-score of 0.134, which indicates a medium-level risk. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining such a low rate, the institution actively avoids the creation of scientific "echo chambers." This practice suggests that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal validation dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.218, which is slightly lower than the national average of -0.113, both falling within a low-risk range. This comparison suggests a prudent profile, where the institution manages its publication processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard. This indicates that its researchers are exercising effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby minimizing exposure to the reputational risks associated with publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
With a Z-score of 0.185, the institution shows a moderate risk level, deviating from the low-risk national average of -0.083. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" contexts, this moderate signal serves as a prompt to ensure a clear distinction is made between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. It is advisable to verify that authorship practices remain transparent and that all credited authors have made a significant intellectual contribution, thus avoiding "honorary" or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 3.541 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.004. This atypical and extremely high value is a critical alert for institutional strategy. A very wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low, signals a significant sustainability risk. This result strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. It calls for a deep assessment to determine whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a situation that could compromise its long-term autonomy and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.805 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.111, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and alerts to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, which is a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.290. This result indicates a successful preventive isolation from a common national practice. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review strengthens the competitive validation of its research, enhances its global visibility, and ensures its scientific production is not perceived as using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates a clear disconnection from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.073). This is a strong indicator of institutional integrity, showing that it does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. The result suggests a culture that discourages data fragmentation or "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the publication of coherent studies with significant new knowledge, the institution upholds the quality of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
