| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.131 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.310 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.518 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.209 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.686 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.236 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.094 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.019 | -0.155 |
The University of Portsmouth demonstrates a multifaceted scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.392 reflecting a combination of commendable strengths and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits robust governance in key areas, notably maintaining a very low rate of publication in its own journals and effectively managing institutional self-citation. Furthermore, its control over multiple affiliations is stronger than the national standard. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by a critical alert regarding the Rate of Retracted Output, which is significantly elevated compared to the national benchmark, alongside medium-risk signals for hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and redundant publications. This risk profile is particularly salient given the University's exceptional research performance in several fields, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the UK's top institutions in Chemistry, Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. The institutional mission, "To create, share and apply knowledge to make a difference," is fundamentally dependent on the credibility and robustness of its research. The high rate of retractions directly threatens this foundation, posing a reputational risk that could undermine the societal impact of its most distinguished academic areas. It is therefore recommended that the University prioritizes a strategic reinforcement of its pre-publication quality control mechanisms and authorship policies to ensure its operational integrity aligns with its academic excellence, thereby safeguarding its core mission.
The University of Portsmouth records a Z-score of -0.131, positioning it in a low-risk category and favorably below the United Kingdom's medium-risk average of 0.597. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that the University's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this prudent profile indicates that the institution has successfully contained practices that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
A critical finding for the institution is its Z-score of 1.310 in this indicator, which signifies a significant risk level and stands in stark contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.088. This severe discrepancy suggests the issue is an institutional anomaly rather than a reflection of a national trend, requiring an urgent and deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this high moves beyond the scope of honest error correction and alerts to a potential systemic failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture may indicate recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.518, the institution's rate of self-citation is low, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.673. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this upward trend relative to its national peers could be an early signal of developing 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued observation is recommended to ensure this does not evolve into a pattern of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might become oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The University's Z-score of -0.209, while low, represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.436). This indicates that the institution's researchers show signals of risk activity that do not appear as frequently in the rest of the country. This suggests a marginal but noteworthy tendency to publish in journals that are later delisted. This finding constitutes an alert regarding the need to enhance due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It points to an opportunity to strengthen information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing potential reputational risks.
The institution's Z-score of 0.686 is higher than the national average of 0.587, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. This suggests the University is more prone to showing alert signals for hyper-authorship than its environment average. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high rate outside those contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as a prompt to review authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential presence of 'honorary' or political authorship, which can compromise research integrity.
The University exhibits a Z-score of 1.236 for this indicator, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.147. This high exposure suggests the institution is more prone to this risk than its peers. The wide positive gap indicates that while its overall citation impact is high, the impact of research led by its own authors is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structurally embedded. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.094, the University presents a medium-risk profile for hyperprolific authors, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.155. This suggests the institution shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and highlights risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.262, placing both in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates a perfect integrity synchrony and a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This result confirms that the University effectively avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. It ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, rather than being routed through internal 'fast tracks' that might bypass standard competitive validation.
The University's Z-score of 0.019 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score -0.155). This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. The score alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
