| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.823 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.193 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.368 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.072 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.775 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.133 | 0.387 |
KEDGE Business School demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, evidenced by a low-risk overall score of -0.527. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over academic endogamy and authorship practices, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, KEDGE shows notable resilience, effectively filtering national risk trends in Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authorship, and impact dependency. This strong ethical foundation supports its academic leadership, as highlighted by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds prominent national positions in key areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 6th in France), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (18th), and Arts and Humanities (37th). The institution's mission to share "primordial values" is well-aligned with this high standard of integrity. However, the one area of moderate concern—the Rate of Redundant Output—presents a potential conflict with this mission, as it can prioritize publication volume over substantive value. To fully embody its stated values, it is recommended that the institution reinforces its governance frameworks by reviewing the drivers of this specific indicator, thereby cementing its reputation for both academic excellence and responsible research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.823, contrasting with the national average of 0.648. This result indicates strong institutional resilience, as KEDGE's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks observed at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the medium-risk trend in France suggests a broader vulnerability to strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. KEDGE’s low score demonstrates that it maintains clear and transparent affiliation policies, effectively resisting a national pattern and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.189. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context. Retractions are complex events, and a rate that mirrors the national standard does not suggest a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control. Instead, it indicates that the institution's mechanisms for supervision and error correction are functioning at a level consistent with its peers, without raising alarms about recurring malpractice or a compromised integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score of -1.193 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.200. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already low national standard. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but KEDGE's exceptionally low rate indicates it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This result points to a strong integration within the global research community, where its work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.368 is very low, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.450. This minimal difference points to a level of residual noise in an otherwise inert environment. The risk of publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards is practically non-existent for the institution. This indicates that its researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues, effectively avoiding predatory practices and safeguarding institutional reputation, with only a negligible signal distinguishing it from the national baseline.
With a Z-score of -1.072, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.859. This disparity highlights a remarkable institutional resilience against a national trend. In France, the medium-risk score suggests a potential for author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that dilute individual accountability. KEDGE’s low score, however, indicates that its policies or academic culture effectively distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable authorship practices, thereby mitigating a vulnerability present in its wider environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.775 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.512. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that KEDGE's scientific prestige is built on solid internal capacity. The medium-risk national trend points to a broader dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. In contrast, KEDGE's low score indicates that its excellence metrics are not merely the result of strategic positioning in collaborations but are driven by genuine intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific reputation is both structural and sustainable.
The institution registers a Z-score of -1.413, markedly below the national average of -0.654. This signals a low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk surpasses the already low national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. KEDGE's very low score strongly suggests a research culture that prioritizes scientific integrity and substantive work over metric-driven productivity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.246. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. KEDGE’s score, mirroring the national standard, confirms a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.133 indicates a medium-level risk, although it is notably lower than the national average of 0.387. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Nonetheless, a medium-level signal warrants attention. It alerts to the potential practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. While KEDGE is performing better than its peers, this indicator suggests a need to review publication strategies to ensure that research output consistently prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.
