| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.583 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.138 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.228 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.111 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.060 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.740 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.401 | -0.003 |
Ecole de Technologie Superieure demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.182. This score indicates a performance that is not only low-risk but also well-aligned with best practices in research governance. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for intellectual leadership, with a remarkably low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and its effective controls over hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals. These strengths are particularly notable when contrasted with national trends. However, two areas warrant strategic attention: a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and a similar signal in the Rate of Redundant Output, suggesting that productivity pressures may be creating vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these solid integrity foundations support significant academic achievements, particularly a Top 10 national ranking in Earth and Planetary Sciences, alongside strong competitive positions in Computer Science, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. This performance is in direct alignment with the institution's mission to drive technological and economic development through applied research. The identified risks, while moderate, could challenge the long-term credibility of this mission by prioritizing quantity over the substantive quality that defines true excellence and social responsibility. A proactive focus on reinforcing authorship guidelines and promoting research of significant scope will be crucial to safeguarding its reputation and fully realizing its strategic vision.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.583, which is significantly lower than the Canadian national average of -0.073. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its collaborative frameworks with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are a common feature of modern research, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests its collaborations are well-defined and organically structured, effectively avoiding any patterns that could be interpreted as strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution's rate of retractions is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.152. This alignment suggests that the institution's post-publication quality control mechanisms operate as expected within its context. Retractions are complex events, and this score does not point to systemic failures. Instead, it reflects a responsible engagement with the scientific process, where occasional corrections are a sign of a healthy and self-regulating research culture rather than a vulnerability in its integrity framework.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.138, a low value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.387. This score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural for building on established research lines, the slight elevation compared to peers could be an early signal of a developing "echo chamber." To ensure the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, it is advisable to encourage broader external engagement and citation practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.228, a low-risk value that nonetheless signals a slight divergence from the national context, where the score is a very low -0.445. This indicates that while the national environment is almost entirely free of this risk, the institution shows minor, yet detectable, signals of activity. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A continued presence, even if small, in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to reputational harm and suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into predatory or low-impact venues.
With a Z-score of -1.111, the institution demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience against a national trend that leans towards medium risk (Z-score of 0.135). This result is a significant strength, showing that the institution acts as an effective filter against systemic pressures for author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the institution's very low score indicates robust governance that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like "honorary" authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.060 is in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the national dynamic, which registers a medium-risk score of 0.306. This is a powerful indicator of scientific maturity and sustainability. While it is common for institutions to depend on external partners for impact, this institution's score demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and generated internally. This confirms that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a core asset for fulfilling its mission of applied research and technology transfer.
A Z-score of 0.740 places the institution in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.151. This is an alert that requires review, as it suggests the institution is more sensitive to productivity pressures than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator warns of potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a closer examination of authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a similar score of -0.227. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security confirms a strong commitment to external validation. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent peer review, reinforcing its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of 0.401, the institution shows a medium-risk signal, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.003, which indicates low risk. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more exposed to practices of data fragmentation than its national counterparts. A high value in this indicator alerts to the possibility of "salami slicing," where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This area should be monitored to ensure research outputs are substantial and coherent.
