| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.469 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.984 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.288 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.003 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-4.229 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.854 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.359 | 0.073 |
The Escola superior de Enfermagem do Porto demonstrates a robust and secure scientific profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.247. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership (evidenced by a very low impact gap) and its effective disconnection from national systemic risks related to hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and the use of institutional journals. However, the analysis identifies a key area for strategic attention: a high rate of institutional self-citation, which suggests a tendency towards academic endogamy. This vulnerability could potentially limit the external validation and global reach necessary to fully achieve its mission of promoting "meaningful Nursing" and being "proactive in health care processes." The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings within Medicine and Social Sciences provides a solid foundation. By addressing the identified risk of self-citation, ESEP can ensure its research not only maintains its internal coherence but also maximizes its impact and relevance for the global community it is committed to serving.
The institution shows a Z-score of 1.469 in this area, compared to the national average of 1.931. This indicates a more controlled approach to a risk that appears to be a common practice at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's ability to keep this rate below the country's average suggests effective management that moderates the potential for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in "affiliation shopping," thus preserving the clarity of its contributions.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.146, slightly above the national average of -0.112. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a rate that begins to exceed the national standard, even at a low level, could be an early indicator that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may need reinforcement to prevent potential systemic issues from escalating.
With a Z-score of 1.984, significantly higher than the national average of 0.134, the institution demonstrates a high exposure to risks associated with self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning tendency towards scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a significant risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.288 for publications in discontinued journals, a figure notably lower than the national average of -0.113. This demonstrates a prudent and rigorous profile in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its research resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices, showcasing a strong commitment to due diligence that surpasses the national standard.
With a Z-score of -1.003, well below the national average of -0.083, the institution exhibits a prudent approach to authorship. This low rate indicates that the institution is not prone to the risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This result suggests a culture that values meaningful contribution over the artificial inflation of author lists, distinguishing its collaborative practices from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -4.229 is exceptionally low, contrasting with a national average of -0.004. This result demonstrates remarkable consistency and a complete absence of risk signals in this area. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The institution's score indicates the opposite: its scientific impact is structurally sound and driven by internal capacity, demonstrating true intellectual leadership and long-term sustainability in its research endeavors, a profile that aligns well with the secure national standard.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.854, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.111, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids the risks of coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, successfully insulating itself from broader national trends.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, effectively isolating it from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.290). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy. The institution's low reliance on its own journals demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
With a Z-score of -0.359, the institution shows a low incidence of redundant output, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.073. This indicates strong institutional resilience against a prevalent national trend. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
