| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.916 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.653 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.421 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.509 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.825 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.459 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.466 | 0.387 |
The Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse presents a robust and highly commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.100 that indicates a performance well-aligned with best practices. The institution's primary strength lies in its exceptional control over research and publication processes, demonstrating very low to low risk levels in eight of the nine indicators analyzed, particularly in areas such as Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. This solid foundation of integrity supports its academic excellence, which is reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings data, highlighting its leadership in key thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 5th in France), Environmental Science (18th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (58th). The only significant point of attention is a high-risk signal in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which diverges sharply from the national average and requires strategic review. While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, this isolated vulnerability could potentially conflict with the universal academic values of transparency and accountability. Overall, the institution is in an excellent position to leverage its strong integrity culture as a strategic asset, and a focused review of its affiliation policies will ensure its practices fully align with its demonstrated commitment to scientific quality.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.916, a value that indicates a significant risk level and is substantially higher than the country's medium-risk score of 0.648. This finding suggests that the institution not only participates in but significantly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national research system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this disproportionately high rate constitutes a critical alert. It may signal systemic strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or a pattern of “affiliation shopping” among its researchers. This practice warrants an immediate internal review to ensure that all declared affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and do not compromise the institution's academic identity or accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.653, the institution demonstrates a very low risk profile, which is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national average of -0.189. This absence of significant risk signals indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but their near-absence here points to a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents systemic failures prior to publication. This performance aligns perfectly with the secure national standard, confirming the reliability of the institution's scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.421 reflects a low risk level, positioning it more favorably than the national average of -0.200. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global scientific community, reinforcing the credibility and reach of its academic influence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.509 is in the very low risk category, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and surpassing the already strong national average of -0.450. This exceptional performance demonstrates total operational silence in this area, reflecting an outstanding level of due diligence in the selection of publication channels. This commitment ensures that institutional research is not channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from reputational damage and avoiding the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 0.825, the institution's rate of hyper-authored publications is at a medium risk level, closely mirroring the national average of 0.859. This alignment suggests that the institution's collaborative patterns reflect a systemic practice shared at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that such practices are justified by the nature of the research. It is advisable to verify that these collaborations are necessary and do not mask issues like 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.459, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.512. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as it effectively mitigates a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is dependent on external partners, but this institution's low score indicates its scientific impact is structurally sound and driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This capacity to generate high-impact work from its own leadership is a key strategic strength, ensuring its scientific excellence is sustainable and not merely a result of its position in larger collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low risk category, a result that is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.654). This low-profile consistency shows an absence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the integrity of the scientific record. This indicates a healthy institutional culture where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained, and authorship is likely awarded based on meaningful intellectual contribution rather than dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific rigor.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's activity in this area is negligible and classified as very low risk, showing perfect synchrony with the secure national environment (Z-score of -0.246). This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility for its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.466 signifies a very low risk, indicating a state of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic present at the national level, where the average score is 0.387 (medium risk). This result shows that the institution does not replicate the national tendency towards data fragmentation. The near-absence of redundant output suggests a strong editorial policy that prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through 'salami slicing,' thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and respecting the academic review system.
