| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.331 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.476 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.131 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.735 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.754 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.092 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.999 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.092 | 0.073 |
ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa presents a scientific integrity profile with an overall risk score of 0.296, indicating a moderate level of exposure to potential vulnerabilities that require strategic monitoring. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and hyperprolific authors, often performing better than the national average and showcasing effective internal controls. These strengths are particularly notable in the area of hyperprolificity, where the institution shows resilience against a medium-risk trend observed nationally. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, ISCTE's academic excellence is concentrated in key areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 4th in Portugal), Psychology (4th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (5th), and Social Sciences (6th). However, the analysis reveals areas of concern, primarily related to a high exposure to institutional self-citation, publication in institutional journals, redundant output, and multiple affiliations, where risk levels exceed the national benchmark. These patterns, suggesting a degree of academic endogamy and potential inflation of productivity metrics, could challenge the fulfillment of its mission "to create and convey scientific knowledge according to the best international standards." An over-reliance on internal validation mechanisms may conflict with the pursuit of global excellence and societal advancement. To fully align its practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that ISCTE leverages its clear strengths in research quality control to develop targeted policies that mitigate the identified risks, thereby enhancing the external validation and global impact of its scientific contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.331, which is higher than the national average of 1.931. This indicates that within a national context already showing a medium level of this activity, the institution is more prone to this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate suggests a need for internal review. It is crucial to ensure that this pattern reflects genuine, substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the perceived contribution of the institution's core research staff.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position than the national average of -0.112. This prudent profile, with a risk signal even lower than the national standard, points towards robust and effective quality control mechanisms. Retractions can result from honest error correction, but a consistently low rate like this suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are functioning well. This performance is a positive indicator of a strong integrity culture, where potential methodological or ethical issues are likely identified and resolved before they can lead to a public retraction, thereby safeguarding scientific and reputational capital.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.476, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.134. This result suggests the institution is more exposed to this risk than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting deep expertise in specific research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be amplified by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.131, placing it at a medium risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.113 (low risk). This discrepancy indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a portion of the institution's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating reputational vulnerabilities and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.735, the institution shows a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship compared to the national average of -0.083. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. This is a strong positive signal, suggesting that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, typical in "Big Science," and potentially problematic practices like author list inflation or honorary authorships. Such control helps ensure that authorship reflects meaningful contribution, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.754 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.004, indicating a very strong and prudent profile in this area. This negative value signifies that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is high, possibly even exceeding the impact of its collaborative work. This is a clear indicator of structural scientific strength and intellectual leadership. It suggests that the institution's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by a robust internal capacity for high-quality, impactful research, which is a key marker of academic sustainability and autonomy.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.092 (low risk), which contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.111 (medium risk). This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk present at the national level. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over scientific integrity, fostering a healthier research environment that values quality over sheer quantity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.999 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.290, indicating high exposure to the risks associated with this practice. While in-house journals can be useful for local dissemination, this level of dependence raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This high value warns of a significant risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review. This practice can limit the global visibility and competitive validation of the institution's science, potentially creating 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without meeting international standards.
With a Z-score of 1.092, the institution shows a much higher rate of redundant output than the national average of 0.073. This high exposure suggests that the institution is more prone to this behavior than its environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated score serves as an alert for the practice of dividing a single coherent study into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
