| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.071 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.512 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.417 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.984 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.604 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.769 | 0.073 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.104, the Escola Superior de Enfermagem de Lisboa demonstrates a robust institutional profile, characterized by a notable dichotomy in its research practices. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths and very low risk in areas such as intellectual leadership (Gap between Impact), authorial concentration (Hyperprolific Authors), and publication channel selection (Discontinued Journals, Institutional Journals). These strengths align well with its prominent position in the field of Medicine, where it ranks 28th in Portugal according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant alerts in three key areas: Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, and Rate of Redundant Output. These practices directly challenge the institutional mission "to be a center for the creation, development, and dissemination of nursing science, seeking excellence and innovation." A culture of excellence is undermined when metrics may be inflated through redundant publications or internal validation loops, potentially hindering true innovation and external recognition. To fully realize its mission, the institution is advised to undertake a strategic review of its authorship, citation, and publication policies to address these specific vulnerabilities and ensure its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated commitment to scientific excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.071, a value that is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 1.931. This indicates that the institution not only reflects a national tendency towards this practice but actively amplifies it, suggesting a systemic vulnerability. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate, as seen here, signals a critical risk of strategic behavior designed to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This pattern warrants an urgent review of authorship and affiliation policies to ensure that institutional credit is claimed ethically and reflects genuine collaborative contributions, rather than being used as a tool for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous profile than the national standard, which stands at -0.112. This favorable comparison suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex events, and a low rate indicates that processes prior to publication are robust, minimizing the incidence of errors that could later lead to retractions. This prudent management of the publication lifecycle reinforces the institution's commitment to producing reliable and high-quality scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.512, which represents a significant escalation of a risk that is already present at the national level (Z-score of 0.134). This suggests that the institution's citation practices are far more inwardly focused than those of its national peers. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, potentially creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.417, positioning it well below the national average of -0.113. This result demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile, aligning with the national standard of avoiding problematic publication venues. The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and reflects a mature information literacy culture.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.984, the institution manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.083. This prudent profile indicates a low probability of author list inflation. In many fields, extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The institution's very low score suggests that its collaborative practices are well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding the principles of meaningful contribution and accountability.
The institution's Z-score of -2.604 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.004. This result signifies an absence of dependency on external partners for impact and points to a strong, self-sufficient research capacity. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is reliant on collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. In contrast, this very low score indicates that the excellence metrics are a direct result of genuine internal capacity and that the institution exercises clear intellectual leadership in its scientific output, ensuring its prestige is both structural and sustainable.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution effectively isolates itself from a risk dynamic observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.111. This preventive stance suggests strong internal governance regarding authorship contributions. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual work and often point to risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity. The institution's very low score in this area is a positive indicator of a healthy balance between productivity and quality, safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.290, indicating that it successfully avoids the risks of academic endogamy that are more common in its environment. This preventive isolation demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and bypass independent peer review. By not channeling its output through such venues, the institution ensures its research is subjected to standard competitive validation, strengthening its credibility and global reach.
The institution exhibits a critical Z-score of 3.769, a figure that dramatically amplifies the moderate risk level seen in the national average of 0.073. This severe discrepancy suggests that the practice of fragmenting research into 'minimal publishable units' is significantly more prevalent here than elsewhere in the country. This high value is a strong alert for 'salami slicing,' a practice that artificially inflates productivity metrics by creating massive bibliographic overlap between publications. Such a strategy not only distorts the scientific evidence available to the community but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, which is contrary to a mission of innovation.
