| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.528 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.188 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.461 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.153 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.602 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.290 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.027 | 0.387 |
The Ecole Nationale du Genie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low-risk aggregate score of -0.403. The institution exhibits remarkable resilience, effectively mitigating several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly concerning multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and dependency on external collaborations for impact. This strong governance foundation supports its notable thematic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, including top-tier positions in Chemistry (11th), Arts and Humanities (15th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (20th). While a specific mission statement was not available for direct comparison, the institution's performance largely aligns with the universal academic principles of excellence and ethical conduct. However, the medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and redundant output warrant strategic attention, as they could potentially undermine the pursuit of externally validated, high-impact knowledge. The institution is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research integrity to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its outstanding academic contributions are built upon an unimpeachable foundation of quality and transparency.
The institution presents a low-risk Z-score of -0.528, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.648. This significant difference suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, indicating that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution’s contained profile demonstrates a clear governance structure that successfully avoids the national trend towards "affiliation shopping," reinforcing its commitment to transparent and accurate academic credit attribution.
With a very low Z-score of -0.418, the institution operates well below the already low national average of -0.189. This result points to a consistent and stable low-risk profile, where the absence of significant retraction signals aligns with the national standard for research quality. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the norm suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. This operational silence in a critical area of scientific integrity indicates a strong culture of methodological rigor that prevents systemic errors or malpractice from entering the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.188 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.200. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of an 'echo chamber.' This value serves as a warning about the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, and merits a review of citation practices.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.461, which is even lower than the very low national average of -0.450. This indicates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, reflecting an absence of publications in problematic journals that is superior to the already high national standard. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert about due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's score, however, confirms that its researchers exercise excellent judgment, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality media and thereby protecting the institution's reputation and research investment.
Displaying a low-risk Z-score of -0.153, the institution effectively counters the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.859). This divergence highlights a strong institutional resilience, where internal policies or academic culture appear to successfully filter out the pressures that lead to authorship inflation elsewhere. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other contexts can dilute individual accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy environment that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the questionable practice of granting 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding transparency in contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.602 is in the low-risk category, indicating a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role. This contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.512, once again demonstrating institutional resilience against a broader trend. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This institution's result, however, suggests that its scientific excellence is endogenous and sustainable, reflecting a strong internal ability to lead high-impact research rather than relying on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
With a very low Z-score of -1.290, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.654. This demonstrates a consistent, low-profile approach to research productivity that aligns with best practices. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution’s excellent score indicates a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk range, slightly outperforming the already strong national average of -0.246. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with a complete absence of risk signals in this area. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as it may allow production to bypass independent external peer review. The institution's commitment to publishing in external venues demonstrates a clear preference for global visibility and competitive validation, reinforcing the credibility and international standing of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 1.027 places it in the medium-risk category, a level consistent with the national average (0.387). However, the institution's score is notably higher, indicating a high exposure to this risk and suggesting it is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value serves as a significant alert, as this practice distorts the scientific evidence base and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, warranting a closer examination of publication strategies.
