| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.288 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.616 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.269 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.268 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.800 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.013 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.269 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.318 | 0.387 |
Institut National des Sciences Appliquees de Rouen presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.175 indicating performance that is well-aligned with expected standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in areas critical to research quality, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Gap in Leadership Impact, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal strong internal quality controls and a culture of autonomous, high-impact research. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output, which suggest a potential overemphasis on quantitative metrics. Thematically, the institution excels nationally, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top French institutions in key areas such as Medicine (49th), Computer Science (66th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (79th). This strong performance directly supports its mission to pursue "excellence" and spread scientific culture. Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly those related to publication strategies, could subtly undermine this "quest for excellence" by creating a perception of metric-driven science rather than genuine discovery. To fully align its practices with its mission, we recommend a proactive review of authorship and publication guidelines to mitigate these medium-risk indicators, thereby reinforcing its position as a leader in both engineering education and responsible research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.288 is notably higher than the national average of 0.648, placing it in a position of high exposure to this risk factor within a national context that already shows medium-level activity. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to engage in practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of valuable partnerships, the significantly elevated rate here warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation for transparent and honest research credit.
With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective and well-aligned with national standards of scientific rigor. The near-total absence of this critical risk signal suggests that potential methodological errors are identified and corrected prior to publication, reflecting a mature and responsible integrity culture that successfully prevents systemic failures and protects the scientific record.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the institution registering a Z-score of 0.269 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.200. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to practices that can lead to academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately higher rate signals a potential risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally rather than through sufficient external scrutiny. This trend could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, and a review is recommended to ensure the institution's influence is a result of global community recognition, not just internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a slight divergence from the national standard. While the country as a whole shows a virtually non-existent risk (Z-score: -0.450), the institution displays a low but measurable signal of activity in this area. This suggests a minor vulnerability in the due diligence processes for selecting publication channels. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, but this low-level signal serves as a constructive warning. It points to the need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and the misallocation of resources.
The institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience in this area. Its Z-score of -0.800 reflects a low-risk profile, standing in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This indicates that the institution's internal governance and control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider French academic environment. This success in maintaining lower rates of hyper-authorship suggests a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thus preserving transparency and individual accountability in its research output.
The institution exhibits a form of preventive isolation from national trends, with an exceptionally low-risk Z-score of -1.013 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.512. This strong performance signifies that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency on external partners for impact, which is more common nationally. The result is a powerful indicator of sustainable and autonomous research excellence. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity, as its high-impact work is predominantly driven by its own intellectual leadership rather than by a strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.269, the institution shows low-profile consistency and an outstandingly low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.654. The absence of this risk signal points to a healthy institutional balance between productivity and research quality. It suggests an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over the sheer volume of publications, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of credit. This commitment to quality over quantity is a cornerstone of a robust scientific integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.246, demonstrating integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. Both the institution and the country show a very low reliance on in-house journals, indicating a shared commitment to external, independent peer review. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that scientific production is validated through competitive, global channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked internally. This alignment reinforces the institution's commitment to transparency and global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 1.318 indicates high exposure to this risk, a value significantly greater than the national average of 0.387, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices like data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate publication counts. While citing previous work is essential, this elevated score warns that a pattern of massive bibliographic overlap may be occurring, a practice that overburdens the review system and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This trend warrants a careful review of institutional incentives and author guidelines.
