| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.283 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.531 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.127 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.362 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.103 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.739 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.022 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.946 | 0.387 |
Ecole des Mines d'Albi-Carmaux demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.390 indicating performance that is generally superior to the national standard. The institution exhibits significant strengths, particularly in its capacity to mitigate systemic risks prevalent in France, such as those related to multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and dependency on external collaborations for impact. This operational resilience is complemented by notable academic achievements, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places the institution among the nation's leaders in key fields like Energy (Top 35), Chemistry (Top 40), Physics and Astronomy (Top 50), and Mathematics (Top 55). However, a significant vulnerability is detected in the Rate of Redundant Output, which is markedly higher than the national average. This practice, if unaddressed, could undermine the institution's mission to "consolidate and promote a scientific and technical legacy," as fragmenting research prioritizes publication volume over the substantive innovation the mission champions. To fully align its practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the institution leverage its strong overall integrity framework to review and refine its publication strategies, ensuring that every output genuinely contributes to a lasting and impactful scientific record.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.283, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.648. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that appear more pronounced at the country level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's lower rate indicates a well-managed approach that avoids the potential pitfalls of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, a risk to which the national system appears more susceptible.
With a Z-score of -0.531, the institution shows an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency points to highly effective pre-publication quality control and a robust culture of integrity. Retractions are complex events, but such a minimal rate strongly suggests that the institution's supervisory and methodological frameworks are successful in preventing the kinds of unintentional errors or recurring malpractice that can lead to systemic failures, thereby safeguarding its scientific record and reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.127, while the national average is -0.200. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, the institution's rate is slightly higher, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this minor elevation serves as a reminder to ensure that the institution's work receives sufficient external scrutiny to avoid the risk of creating 'echo chambers' where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.362 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.450, placing both in the very low-risk category. This minimal score, while slightly higher than the country's, represents only residual noise in an otherwise inert and healthy environment. It confirms that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. This practice is critical for avoiding the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals and ensures that institutional resources are not wasted on publication outlets that fail to meet international ethical and quality standards.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.103, a figure significantly lower and healthier than the national average of 0.859. This disparity highlights the institution's effective filtering of practices that are more common across the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not structurally necessary, a low rate like this is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the institution successfully promotes transparency and individual accountability, effectively preventing the dilution of responsibility that can arise from author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships.
With a Z-score of -0.739, the institution demonstrates a very low dependency on external collaborations for its impact, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.512. This result indicates remarkable institutional resilience and sustainability. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own internal capacity, as the research it leads is just as impactful as its overall collaborative output. This is a clear sign of intellectual leadership, showing that the institution's excellence metrics are not merely the result of strategic positioning in partnerships but are rooted in genuine, home-grown research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.022 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.654. This absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard but demonstrates an even higher level of prudence. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this very low indicator suggests a well-balanced academic environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.246, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution, like its national peers, avoids over-reliance on its own publication channels. By doing so, it successfully sidesteps the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This commitment to independent, external peer review ensures its scientific production achieves greater global visibility and is validated through standard competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score of 1.946 is a significant alert, indicating high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the more moderate national average of 0.387. While both operate in a medium-risk context, the institution is far more prone to showing signals of this behavior. A high value in this indicator points to massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications, a key sign of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, aimed at artificially inflating productivity by dividing a single study into minimal publishable units, warrants an urgent internal review as it can distort the available scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
