| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.178 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.060 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.412 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.868 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.015 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.608 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.129 | 0.387 |
Centrale Supelec demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.212, indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for output in discontinued and institutional journals, showcasing excellent due diligence and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk signal for redundant publications (salami slicing), which is notably higher than the national average, and a moderate gap in the impact of its self-led research. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's world-class standing in key thematic areas such as Computer Science (ranked 4th in France), Engineering (6th), and Mathematics (7th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the overall low-risk environment strongly supports the institutional mission to foster "ethics, responsibility and citizenry," the identified vulnerabilities, particularly the practice of research fragmentation, could subtly undermine these core values. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, it is recommended that the institution focuses on reinforcing policies that incentivize substantive scientific contributions over sheer publication volume, thereby ensuring its academic excellence is built upon an unshakeable foundation of integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.178, contrasting with the national average of 0.648. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the national context shows a medium-risk tendency towards practices that could inflate institutional credit. Centrale Supelec’s low score suggests that its governance effectively curbs any trend towards strategic “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that co-authorships reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than metric-driven arrangements.
With a Z-score of -0.118 compared to the national average of -0.189, the institution shows signs of an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores are in the low-risk category, the institution’s rate is slightly higher than the national baseline, signaling a point for proactive monitoring. Retractions can signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors; however, a rate that edges above the norm, even if slightly, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may have a vulnerability. This warrants a review to ensure that potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor are not becoming systemic issues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.060 indicates an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.200. While both figures reside within a low-risk threshold, the institution displays a slightly greater tendency towards self-referential practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting deep expertise in specific research lines. However, this minor elevation serves as a cautionary signal against the potential formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' It is crucial to monitor this trend to prevent the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community, not just by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.412 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.450, demonstrating integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment at a very low-risk level indicates that the institution, like its national peers, exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice is a critical defense against reputational damage, confirming that institutional resources are not being wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publications and that researchers are well-informed about ethical publishing standards.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.868 against a national average of 0.859, the institution shows strong institutional resilience. It effectively resists a national trend towards higher-risk authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the medium-risk national score suggests a broader tendency towards author list inflation. In contrast, Centrale Supelec's very low score indicates a robust culture of accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving the transparency and meaning of contributorship.
The institution's Z-score of 0.015, while in the medium-risk category, reflects differentiated management compared to the national average of 0.512. This indicates that the institution is moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. Centrale Supelec’s significantly smaller gap, however, points to a more sustainable model where institutional excellence is increasingly driven by its own intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of maintaining a prestige that is exogenous and potentially fragile.
With a Z-score of -0.608, the institution operates at a level of statistical normality, closely mirroring the national average of -0.654. Both scores are firmly in the low-risk category, indicating that the institution's productivity patterns are as expected for its context. There are no signals of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alignment confirms a healthy balance between quantity and quality, free from the risks of coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the already very low national average of -0.246. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This choice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its reputation for high-quality, externally scrutinized scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 1.129 indicates high exposure to this risk, positioning it as more vulnerable than its environment, where the national average is a more moderate 0.387. This is a significant alert, suggesting that the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity may be more prevalent here than elsewhere in the country. Such a pattern of massive bibliographic overlap between publications not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system. This finding calls for an urgent review of research incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
