| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.392 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.263 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.482 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.052 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.590 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
16.745 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.293 | 0.073 |
The Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.803 that indicates a performance with significant areas for improvement when benchmarked against global standards. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining rigorous publication standards, reflected in its very low rates of output in discontinued journals and hyperprolific authorship, alongside a prudent management of retractions. These positive aspects are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, particularly a significant over-reliance on institutional journals and an unusually high rate of multiple affiliations, which pose direct challenges to its mission. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's core thematic areas are Medicine and Social Sciences. However, the detected risks of academic endogamy and potential affiliation-driven credit inflation directly contradict the stated mission of achieving "international recognition" through "quality and innovation." Such practices undermine the credibility of being "socially recognised professionals" by prioritizing internal metrics over external, independent validation. To safeguard its legacy and mission, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear strengths in quality control to develop robust governance policies that address these critical integrity gaps, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is both genuine and sustainable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.392 in this indicator, a value that is substantially higher than the national average for Portugal (1.931). This suggests that the center is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability 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 internal policies. Such a significant deviation may indicate strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can distort the perception of the institution's collaborative footprint and research contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard in Portugal (-0.112). This favorable result indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex, and a low rate suggests that when unintentional errors occur, they are managed responsibly through a culture of supervision and integrity. This performance reinforces the institution's commitment to producing reliable science and shows a systemic strength in its pre-publication review processes.
The institution's Z-score of 0.263 is moderately elevated compared to the national average of 0.134, indicating a higher exposure to the risks associated with this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this heightened rate warns of a potential drift towards a scientific 'echo chamber,' where the institution may be validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence could be oversized by internal citation patterns rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.482 that signifies a near-total absence of risk, standing in positive contrast to the country's already low-risk score of -0.113. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the institution's practices align with the highest standards of publication ethics. It indicates a robust due diligence process for selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals and underscoring a strong commitment to information literacy among its researchers.
The institution's Z-score of -0.052 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average for Portugal (-0.083). This indicates that the level of co-authorship is as expected for its context and size, without showing signs of risk. The data suggests that authorship practices are in line with disciplinary norms, and there is no evidence of systemic author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 0.590 contrasting with the low-risk national profile of -0.004. This suggests the center is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. The wide positive gap, where global impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution itself, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in external partnerships.
The institution shows a pattern of preventive isolation, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 that indicates a complete absence of this risk dynamic. This is particularly noteworthy as this risk is present at a medium level across Portugal (0.111). This result strongly suggests that the institution fosters an environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. It successfully avoids the potential pitfalls of hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of 16.745, the institution shows a critical accentuation of risk, amplifying a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (0.290). This extreme over-reliance on its own journals raises a significant conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice warns of severe academic endogamy, where a substantial portion of its scientific production may be bypassing independent external peer review. Such a dynamic severely limits global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics without undergoing standard competitive validation, posing a serious threat to its scientific credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 1.293 indicates high exposure to this risk, placing it well above the national average of 0.073. While citing previous work is a necessary part of building cumulative knowledge, this elevated value suggests a pattern of data fragmentation. It alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
