| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.297 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.396 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.417 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.500 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.308 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.574 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.178 | -0.003 |
The Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.282 that indicates performance significantly stronger than the global average. This is characterized by a consistent absence of high-risk signals across all monitored indicators, with particular strengths in avoiding publication in discontinued journals and minimizing academic endogamy through institutional journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this foundation of integrity supports notable research strengths in key thematic areas, including Mathematics, Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, and Engineering, where the university holds strong national rankings. This low-risk operational standard directly aligns with UQAM's mission to foster socially responsible development and enrich knowledge with a critical perspective. By maintaining such high standards of scientific conduct, the institution ensures that its contributions to society are not only innovative but also trustworthy, reinforcing its role as a key partner for economic, cultural, and social stakeholders. UQAM is well-positioned to leverage this exceptional integrity profile as a hallmark of quality, further enhancing its reputation and impact both nationally and internationally.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.297, a value indicating a lower risk than the national average of -0.073. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its collaborative and affiliation processes with more rigor than the Canadian standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. UQAM's controlled rate indicates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine scientific contribution rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's academic currency.
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.152, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture. Although the current level is low, this minor deviation suggests that a proactive review of pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be beneficial to ensure that potential issues related to methodological rigor or recurring malpractice are addressed before they escalate, thus reinforcing the institution's commitment to a sound scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.396, which is in very close alignment with the national average of -0.387. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the university's self-citation practices are as expected for its context and size. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. UQAM's score indicates a healthy balance, suggesting its research is validated by the broader scientific community and is not at risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.417, a figure that is in close synchrony with the already low national average of -0.445. This alignment points to an environment of maximum scientific security, where institutional and national practices converge on high standards. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. UQAM's virtually non-existent rate in this area confirms that its researchers exercise rigorous judgment, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality media and protecting the institution from severe reputational risks.
With a Z-score of -0.500, the institution shows a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship compared to the national Z-score of 0.135. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as UQAM's internal controls and academic culture appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. UQAM's low score suggests a strong defense against such practices, promoting transparency and ensuring that authorship accurately reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.308, starkly contrasting with the national average of 0.306. This result highlights a significant degree of institutional resilience, indicating that UQAM is effectively countering a national trend where institutional impact is often dependent on external collaboration. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where prestige is exogenous rather than structural. UQAM's negative gap, however, suggests that its scientific excellence is driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring that its reputation is built on a solid and sustainable foundation of its own making.
The institution's Z-score of -0.574 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.151, reflecting a prudent profile that manages research productivity with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. UQAM's low rate of hyperprolificity indicates a healthy institutional culture that likely prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and thus upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's activity in this area is minimal and in strong alignment with the national average of -0.227. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment within the Canadian academic environment to prioritize external validation. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. UQAM's very low rate demonstrates a clear commitment to global scientific standards, ensuring its research is validated competitively and visibly on an international stage rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.178, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.003. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting that UQAM manages its publication ethics with greater rigor than the national standard. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' points to the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts the scientific evidence base. UQAM's controlled performance in this area signifies a culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.
