| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.080 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.219 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.432 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.073 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.223 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.870 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.654 | 0.387 |
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.379 indicating performance superior to the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in areas of responsible publication practices, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These results signal a strong governance framework that effectively insulates the institution from certain risk dynamics prevalent at the national level. Areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to Hyper-Authored Output and the Gap between total and led-research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's academic excellence is particularly notable in fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 4th in France), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (5th), and Arts and Humanities (6th). As the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the findings are assessed against the universal academic goals of excellence and integrity. The identified medium-risk areas, particularly those related to authorship and impact dependency, could challenge the perception of self-sustained excellence. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, the institution can further solidify its position as a leader in both high-impact research and ethical scientific conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.080, a signal of very low risk that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.648. This result suggests a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk patterns observed in its environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates often signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution’s exceptionally low score indicates that its policies or culture effectively prevent such "affiliation shopping," maintaining a clear and transparent accounting of its collaborative contributions and avoiding a vulnerability present elsewhere in the national system.
With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.189. This prudent positioning demonstrates effective management of a complex issue. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors, but a high rate can suggest systemic failures in quality control. The institution's lower-than-average score indicates that its pre-publication validation and integrity mechanisms are functioning with particular effectiveness, minimizing the incidence of outputs that require retraction and reinforcing a culture of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.219 reflects a low-risk profile, managed with more rigor than the national standard (-0.200). This prudent approach is a positive indicator of the institution's integration within the global scientific community. While some self-citation is natural, high rates can signal scientific isolation or "echo chambers." The institution's controlled rate suggests that its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, demonstrating a healthy balance between building on established research lines and engaging with the broader academic world.
The institution's Z-score of -0.432 is indicative of very low risk, closely tracking the national average of -0.450. This minimal score points to a situation of residual noise, where risk is almost non-existent, but the institution shows a faint signal in an otherwise inert environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals would be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution’s performance confirms that its researchers are overwhelmingly selecting reputable and stable journals, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality outlets and safeguarding its reputational standing.
With a Z-score of 1.073, the institution shows a medium risk level, indicating high exposure to this phenomenon, even more so than the national average of 0.859. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to publishing works with extensive author lists. While common in 'Big Science' fields, this pattern can otherwise indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a closer examination to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potential 'honorary' authorship practices that could compromise transparency.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.223, a medium-risk signal that is, however, notably better than the national average of 0.512. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. The institution's more contained score indicates a healthier balance, suggesting that its excellence metrics are more closely tied to its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of a dependent or exogenous reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.870 signifies a low-risk profile, demonstrating a more prudent approach than the national standard (-0.654). This indicates a very low incidence of authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, it can also signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's strong negative score suggests a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's risk level is very low and virtually identical to the national average of -0.246. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a secure national environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The institution's negligible rate in this indicator confirms that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, ensuring its work is validated by the global community and not channeled through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.654, a very low-risk signal that demonstrates preventive isolation from the national trend, which stands at a medium-risk level of 0.387. This stark difference is a significant strength. High bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The institution’s excellent score shows a strong commitment to publishing coherent, significant contributions to knowledge, effectively resisting the pressure to prioritize volume over substance and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
