| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.197 | 2.241 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | 0.447 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.672 | -0.186 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.158 | 0.101 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.049 | -0.505 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.109 | 0.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.873 | 1.633 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.192 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.099 | -0.164 |
Universite Saint-Joseph demonstrates a robust overall profile in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.212 indicating performance that is healthier than the international average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous pre-publication quality controls and its commitment to external validation, as evidenced by exceptionally low-risk levels in Retracted Output and Output in Institutional Journals. This solid foundation is complemented by strong performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where the university holds top-tier national positions in key thematic areas such as Dentistry (2nd in Lebanon), Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3rd). However, this report identifies medium-risk vulnerabilities related to authorship patterns (Hyper-Authored Output and Redundant Output) and a significant dependency on external collaborations for impact (Gap between total and led output). Although the institution's formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, these findings have direct implications for core academic values. The identified risks could challenge the pursuit of genuine intellectual leadership and research integrity—foundations of any mission centered on academic excellence and societal contribution. By leveraging its clear strengths in quality assurance, the university is well-positioned to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its leadership role and ensuring the long-term sustainability of its scientific impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.197, contrasting sharply with the national average of 2.241. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university maintains a low-risk profile in an environment where multiple affiliations are a medium-level concern. This suggests that the institution has effective control mechanisms that prevent the potential misuse of affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s controlled rate indicates it successfully avoids practices like “affiliation shopping” or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, which may be more prevalent at the national level.
With a Z-score of -0.418 against a national average of 0.447, the institution shows a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The university’s very low rate of retractions, compared to the country's medium-risk level, points to highly effective and systemic quality control mechanisms prior to publication. Retractions can be complex, but a rate this far below the norm is a strong positive signal. It suggests a robust integrity culture and a high degree of methodological rigor that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or error that may be affecting other institutions in the country, warranting immediate qualitative verification by their management.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.672 is notably lower than the national average of -0.186, reflecting a prudent profile in its citation practices. While both the university and the country operate at a low-risk level, the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but this lower rate indicates a strong commitment to external validation and a healthy avoidance of scientific isolation. This practice mitigates the risk of creating 'echo chambers' and demonstrates that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.158 stands in positive contrast to the national Z-score of 0.101. This discrepancy highlights the university’s institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of publishing in low-quality venues that are a medium-level concern for the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, and the university’s low-risk score indicates that its researchers are effectively channeling their work through reputable media. This protects the institution from severe reputational damage and suggests a strong culture of information literacy that avoids wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution’s Z-score at 0.049 (medium risk) while the national average is -0.505 (low risk). This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a medium-risk score outside these areas can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices that may be developing within the institution.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.109, significantly higher than the national average of 0.285, though both are within the medium-risk category. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national counterparts to generating impact through collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from its positioning in partnerships where it plays a supporting role.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.873, in stark contrast to the national average of 1.633. While hyperprolificity is a medium-level risk across the country, the institution’s low-risk profile suggests its control mechanisms effectively mitigate this trend. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the national average of -0.192, the institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator. This exemplary performance, with an absence of risk signals even below the national very-low-risk average, highlights a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university’s near-zero use of such channels for its indexed output enhances its global visibility and confirms it does not use internal publications as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, instead opting for standard competitive validation.
This indicator reveals a moderate deviation, with the institution registering a Z-score of 1.099 (medium risk) compared to the country’s low-risk average of -0.164. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices that artificially inflate productivity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units. This medium-risk signal serves as an alert that this practice, which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system, may be occurring at a rate that warrants a review of institutional publication and evaluation criteria.
