Institut National des Sciences Appliquees de Strasbourg

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Institut National des Sciences Appliquees de Strasbourg demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.382 indicating performance that is notably stronger than the national context. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels and authorship practices, showing very low risk in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. It also displays significant resilience by effectively mitigating national risk trends in Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authorship, and dependency on external collaborations for impact. However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderate rate of Institutional Self-Citation and, most notably, a high exposure to Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), which significantly exceeds the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's research excellence is particularly prominent in thematic areas such as Medicine, Energy, Computer Science, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. The identified risks, particularly those related to self-validation and data fragmentation, could challenge the institution's mission to conduct "fundamental and applied research" of the highest caliber. Upholding excellence requires not just innovation but also unimpeachable external validation. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the institution can further solidify its strong integrity foundation, ensuring its research practices fully align with its mission of training elite engineers and architects and advancing science with social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates effective control over affiliation practices, showing a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.364) in contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.648). This suggests that the institution's governance mechanisms successfully mitigate the systemic pressures for affiliation inflation seen elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a healthy focus on genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping”.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's very low rate of retracted publications (Z-score: -0.418) is consistent with the low-risk environment in France (Z-score: -0.189), indicating robust pre-publication quality control. This absence of significant risk signals aligns with the national standard, suggesting that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are effective. A rate significantly lower than the global average affirms that quality control mechanisms are functioning correctly, preventing the types of systemic errors or malpractice that often lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

A moderate deviation is observed in institutional self-citation, where the institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.239, while the national context shows a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.200). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, this elevated rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation and warrants a review to ensure the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition, not just internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates exceptional due diligence in selecting publication venues, with a Z-score of -0.498 that indicates a near-total absence of output in discontinued journals, performing even better than the already strong national average (Z-score: -0.450). This operational silence in a high-risk area is a critical strength. It shows that researchers are successfully avoiding predatory or low-quality channels, which protects the institution's reputation and ensures research resources are invested in credible, high-impact dissemination rather than being wasted on media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution effectively filters out the national trend towards hyper-authorship, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.394 against a medium-risk national backdrop (Z-score: 0.859). This indicates strong institutional policies or a culture that promotes clear accountability in authorship. By avoiding the patterns of author list inflation seen elsewhere, the institution reinforces the principles of transparency and meaningful contribution, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution exhibits a high degree of scientific autonomy and leadership, as shown by its low-risk Z-score of -0.695 in this indicator, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average (Z-score: 0.512). This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is built on strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates a sustainable model of excellence where the impact generated is structural and endogenous, a clear sign of a mature and self-reliant research ecosystem where the institution exercises intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.242, the institution shows a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, a profile that is consistent with, and even stronger than, the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.654). This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests that institutional pressures do not encourage practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, such as coercive authorship or assigning authorship without real participation, thus reinforcing a culture of meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's publication practices are in perfect alignment with the national environment of maximum scientific security, showing a very low Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, which is statistically identical to the country's score (Z-score: -0.246). This demonstrates a clear commitment to external, independent peer review for validating its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest, ensuring its scientific production is measured against global competitive standards rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator reveals an area of high exposure for the institution. Its Z-score of 1.464 for redundant output is significantly higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.387), even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more prone to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This finding warrants a closer examination of institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over publication volume.