Grenoble Ecole de Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Grenoble Ecole de Management demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.319 indicating performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over academic endogamy and its capacity for generating independent impact, evidenced by very low risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation, Gap in Impact, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Output in Institutional Journals. The only area requiring strategic attention is a medium-risk score in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is notably higher than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these strong integrity practices underpin areas of significant academic influence, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 25th in France), Arts and Humanities (46th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (48th). This performance strongly aligns with the institution's mission to "train leaders and managers" by ensuring the "co-construction of skills and knowledge" is built upon a foundation of credible, transparent, and ethically sound research. While the overall profile is excellent, addressing the high rate of multiple affiliations is crucial to ensure that collaborative practices genuinely reflect co-construction rather than strategic credit inflation, thereby safeguarding the ethical principles inherent in leadership. The institution is advised to maintain its exemplary governance while qualitatively assessing its affiliation patterns to fortify its already outstanding commitment to scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.372, a medium-risk signal that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.648. This suggests the institution is more exposed to the dynamics driving this indicator than its peers within a country that already shows a moderate tendency for it. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Given that the institution's rate exceeds the national benchmark, it is advisable to review collaboration and affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine scientific partnership over metric optimization.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's risk level is low but slightly more visible than the national average of -0.189. This score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants preemptive review. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that, while low, is still above the national baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be fortified. This is not a current problem but a signal to ensure that systemic issues, recurring malpractice, or a lack of methodological rigor do not develop, thereby protecting the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.091 indicates a very low risk, a performance that is significantly stronger than the country's low-risk average of -0.200. This demonstrates a consistent and commendable low-profile approach to citation practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution clearly avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high rates. This very low score confirms that the institution's work is validated by sufficient external scrutiny, and its academic influence is firmly rooted in global community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.545, reflecting a total operational silence in this risk area and surpassing the already strong national benchmark of -0.450. This exceptional performance indicates that there are virtually no signals of engagement with problematic publication venues. It demonstrates an outstanding level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals. This result suggests that institutional information literacy and quality control are highly effective.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.667, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience against the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.859). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation present in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's low score indicates a successful effort to uphold individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.966 is in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (0.512). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the dependency on external partners for impact that is more common in its environment. A low gap suggests that scientific prestige is structural and generated by internal capacity, not merely a result of strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. This is a key indicator of sustainable and autonomous scientific strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, reinforcing a profile of integrity that aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.654). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of a balanced research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The institution's very low score suggests that its environment prioritizes quality and scientific record integrity over the pursuit of sheer volume, fostering a healthy balance between productivity and rigor.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a complete alignment with the secure national environment, where the average score is -0.246. This integrity synchrony signifies that both the institution and the country operate with maximum security regarding this indicator. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby maximizing its global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.436 places it in the low-risk category, a sign of institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This indicates that the center's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the country's systemic risks related to data fragmentation. A low rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' demonstrates a commitment to publishing coherent and significant studies. This approach avoids artificially inflating productivity metrics and ensures that the institution contributes meaningful new knowledge rather than overburdening the scientific review system.