| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.107 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.665 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.497 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.816 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.399 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.191 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.073 | 0.387 |
The Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.302 indicating performance that is significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and output in its own journals, reflecting a strong culture of quality control and commitment to external validation. While moderate risk signals are present in the rates of multiple affiliations and the gap in impact between led and collaborative research, the institution consistently outperforms the national average in these areas, suggesting effective internal governance. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this strong integrity framework underpins its academic excellence, particularly in its top-ranked national fields such as Arts and Humanities (7th), Psychology (10th), and Social Sciences (12th). Although the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, this demonstrated commitment to responsible research practices inherently aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To build on this solid foundation, a strategic focus on monitoring the identified medium-risk indicators will ensure that its prestigious reputation remains fully supported by unimpeachable scientific conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.107, which, while indicating a medium risk level, reflects a more controlled environment compared to the national average of 0.648. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates risk factors that appear to be more common across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this prudent management helps mitigate the risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that institutional attributions accurately reflect genuine scientific contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.033 against a national average of -0.189, the institution's risk level is low but shows an incipient vulnerability. This slight divergence from the national baseline suggests the presence of minor risk signals that warrant review before they could potentially escalate. Retractions can be complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate that edges above the national standard, even if low, may hint at a potential weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms that could benefit from proactive monitoring.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.665, significantly lower than the national average of -0.200. This indicates that its research processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard, fostering a culture of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining such a low rate, the institution effectively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This performance strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.497 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.450, reflecting an integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This total absence of risk signals demonstrates excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Such vigilance is critical for avoiding reputational damage and ensures that institutional resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices, thereby safeguarding the credibility of its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.816, the institution exhibits a low risk level that contrasts sharply with the medium risk observed at the national level (0.859). This demonstrates clear institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. This performance indicates a strong capacity to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thus preserving transparency and individual accountability in its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.399, while in the medium risk category, is notably lower than the national average of 0.512. This points to differentiated management, where the institution moderates the risk of depending on external partners for impact more effectively than its national peers. A wide gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous rather than structural. The institution's more contained score suggests it is successfully building its own internal capacity for intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of its excellence metrics being overly reliant on collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.191 is exceptionally low, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area and aligning with the low-risk national standard (-0.654). This low-profile consistency underscores a healthy research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, ensuring that its productivity metrics reflect meaningful intellectual contributions and a commitment to the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.246, reflecting a shared environment of maximum security in this indicator. This demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking independent, external peer review for its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production achieves global visibility through standard competitive validation channels.
The institution shows significant institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.073, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This suggests that its internal controls and academic culture effectively filter out the systemic risk of redundant publications. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's strong performance here indicates a focus on publishing significant, coherent new knowledge rather than distorting the scientific evidence for metric-driven gains.
