| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.400 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.103 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.438 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.007 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.227 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.663 | 0.387 |
Bordeaux Sciences Agro demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.248. The institution exhibits exceptional control in several key areas, particularly in avoiding predatory publishing, hyperprolific authorship, and academic endogamy. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience by maintaining low-risk levels for hyper-authorship and impact dependency, effectively mitigating vulnerabilities present at the national level. The institution's academic strengths are clearly positioned in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Social Sciences, where it holds a prominent standing within France according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, to fully align with its mission of excellence in "research and technology transfer," attention is required for two specific indicators: Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output. These practices, if left unaddressed, could create an impression of an insular research culture and a focus on quantity over substantive impact, potentially undermining the credibility and external validation essential for effective knowledge transfer. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Bordeaux Sciences Agro can further solidify its reputation as a leader in responsible and high-impact research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.400, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.648. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is otherwise common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's more controlled rate indicates effective oversight to prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice more prevalent in the national context.
With a Z-score of -0.362, significantly below the national average of -0.189, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its publication practices. This superior performance indicates that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are likely more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can signal systemic failures in integrity, but the institution's low rate suggests its supervisory and methodological frameworks are effective in preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of rigor that would otherwise require post-publication correction.
The institution's Z-score of 0.103 contrasts sharply with the national average of -0.200, signaling a moderate deviation from the national norm. This discrepancy suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal citations rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits integrity synchrony with the national environment, with a Z-score of -0.438 that is almost identical to the country's average of -0.450. This alignment demonstrates a total absence of risk signals in this area. It confirms that the institution's researchers are exercising proper due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational and resource risks associated with channeling scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, such as 'predatory' journals.
The institution displays significant institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.007 against a much higher national average of 0.859. This indicates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk observed across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', the institution's low score suggests it successfully filters out inappropriate practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.227 compared to the national average of 0.512, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience and intellectual autonomy. While the national trend points to a potential dependency on external partners for achieving high impact, this institution's score indicates its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from research where it exercises direct leadership. This reflects a robust internal capacity for generating high-quality science, rather than relying on strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413, well below the national average of -0.654, reflects a low-profile consistency where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a secure national standard. This exceptionally low score confirms a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It indicates that the institution is free from the dynamics of extreme individual publication volumes, which can often signal risks such as coercive authorship or a prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.246, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This indicates that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its own journals for publication. By doing so, it sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.663 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.387. This suggests the center is more prone to alert signals for this practice than its peers. A high value warns of the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
