Institut Agro Dijon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Institut Agro Dijon presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a very low overall risk score of -0.538 and a consistent outperformance of national averages across nearly all indicators. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining internally-led impact, preventing hyperprolific authorship, and avoiding retractions, signaling a deeply embedded culture of quality and responsible research. The only area presenting a moderate, though still nationally contained, signal is the rate of hyper-authored output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this strong integrity framework underpins the institution's thematic leadership, particularly in its top-ranked areas of Agricultural and Biological Sciences (20th in France), Psychology (26th), and Medicine (47th). This performance directly aligns with its mission to be a "grand établissement" of a scientific and professional nature, as the observed low-risk dynamics are foundational to achieving genuine excellence and fulfilling its public service mandate. The institution's ability to generate high-quality, independent research confirms that its reputation is built on solid ground, fully supporting its educational and scientific objectives. To further consolidate this exemplary position, a proactive review of authorship policies could transform the one area of moderate risk into another institutional strength.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.255, a low value that contrasts with the national average of 0.648. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the center appears to have effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate suggests a focus on substantive collaborations rather than the strategic "affiliation shopping" that can be used to inflate institutional credit, a practice more prevalent at the national level.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.531, the institution shows a very low rate of retracted output, performing better than the already low national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard, indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are exceptionally robust. This performance reflects a mature integrity culture, effectively preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures and subsequent retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.375, which is lower than the national average of -0.200. This prudent profile indicates that the center manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's comparatively lower rate suggests it successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through endogamous practices, demonstrating that its academic influence is validated by broad external recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is even lower than the national average of -0.450, signaling a complete absence of this risk. This total operational silence in publishing within questionable channels is a clear indicator of excellent due diligence and information literacy among its researchers. It confirms that the institution's scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting it from the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.084, while indicating a medium risk level, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.859. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the center effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's ability to contain this practice suggests a healthier culture around authorship, distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially 'honorary' attributions.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.085, a very low value that starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.512. This signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. In this case, the very low score is a powerful indicator of sustainability, demonstrating that the institution's scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic dependency on collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution far exceeds the low-risk national standard (-0.654). This low-profile consistency, where risk signals are virtually absent, points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low rate in this area suggests its culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low and closely mirrors the national average of -0.246. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.133 indicates a low risk, standing in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its internal controls appear to effectively mitigate a risk that is more prevalent nationally. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-driven gains.