| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.713 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.563 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.455 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.276 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.712 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.148 | 0.387 |
The Institut d'Economie Scientifique et de Gestion demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a commendable overall risk score of -0.544. The institution exhibits exceptional control over potential research malpractice, with very low risk signals in key areas such as institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and publication in discontinued journals, often outperforming national benchmarks. This strong governance framework underpins its academic excellence, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 8th in France), Business, Management and Accounting (11th), and Arts and Humanities (47th). This commitment to integrity directly supports the institutional mission to educate "ethical pioneers" and promote "responsible organizations." While the overall picture is highly positive, the moderate signal for redundant output suggests an area for proactive monitoring to ensure that all research practices fully align with the mission's core values of innovation and responsibility. By reinforcing its already strong integrity culture, the institution is well-positioned to continue its trajectory as a leading and ethically grounded academic entity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.713, contrasting with the national average of 0.648. This significant difference suggests a high degree of institutional resilience. While the broader national context shows a medium-level tendency towards practices that could indicate strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit, the institution maintains a much more conservative and transparent profile. This indicates that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in its environment, ensuring that researcher affiliations remain a legitimate reflection of genuine collaboration rather than a tool for metric inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.189. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of risk is as expected for its context. The low rate of retractions suggests that post-publication corrections are occurring at a healthy, non-alarming frequency. This indicates that while isolated, unintentional errors may occur and are responsibly corrected, there is no evidence of systemic failures in pre-publication quality control or recurring malpractice that would require urgent management intervention.
The institution's Z-score of -1.563 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.200. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency with the national standard for external validation, but at a much more pronounced level. The near-absence of institutional self-citation is a strong indicator that the institution avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This confirms that its academic influence is built upon broad recognition from the global research community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility and impact of its work.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.455, slightly better than the already very low national average of -0.450. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk. The data shows a clear absence of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This performance indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' publishing and safeguarding the quality of their scientific output.
A Z-score of -1.276 places the institution in stark contrast to the national average of 0.859. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed more broadly in the country. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, the institution's very low score suggests it successfully avoids the practice of author list inflation in its core disciplines. This fosters a culture of transparency and individual accountability, ensuring that authorship accurately reflects meaningful intellectual contribution rather than being diluted by 'honorary' or political attributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.712 is a strong positive indicator, especially when compared to the national average of 0.512. This demonstrates institutional resilience and scientific autonomy. A low or negative score indicates that the institution's impact is driven by research where it holds intellectual leadership, avoiding a dependency on external partners. Unlike the national trend, which suggests a reliance on collaborations for impact, this institution proves its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, stemming from its own capacity to lead and innovate rather than from a strategic position in partnerships.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a significantly lower risk than the national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency with a healthy research environment is a testament to its academic culture. The virtual absence of hyperprolific authors—those with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful contribution—suggests the institution prioritizes quality over quantity. This focus helps prevent risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, ensuring that the scientific record is built on substantive and integral work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is slightly lower than the national average of -0.246, indicating total operational silence on this indicator. This result confirms that the institution is not reliant on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By consistently seeking validation through external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its research achieves global visibility and credibility, rather than using internal channels that might bypass standard competitive evaluation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.148, while indicating a medium risk level, is notably lower than the national average of 0.387. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that appears more common at the national level. Nevertheless, this signal warrants attention, as it alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. While the institution shows more control than its peers, continued vigilance is needed to ensure that research output consistently represents significant new knowledge and does not overburden the review system with redundant content.
