| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.849 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.003 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.474 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.741 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.002 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.263 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.538 | 0.387 |
Université Clermont-Auvergne presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.101. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in critical areas such as the avoidance of discontinued journals and institutional publications, alongside a prudent management of retractions and self-citation. These strengths are counterbalanced by notable vulnerabilities, particularly a significant rate of hyper-authored output and medium-level risks associated with hyper-prolific authors, impact dependency, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly prominent in fields such as Dentistry (ranked 11th in France), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (12th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (16th). Although the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks around authorship and impact dependency could challenge foundational academic values of excellence and transparency. Addressing these vulnerabilities will be key to ensuring that quantitative productivity metrics do not overshadow the pursuit of genuine, sustainable, and high-integrity scientific contributions, thereby reinforcing its leadership in its strongest research domains.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.849, which is higher than the national average of 0.648. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a greater propensity for this practice. This heightened exposure suggests that the university is more prone to behaviors that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than a mechanism for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.189. This indicates that the university manages its processes with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but this lower-than-average rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effective. It reflects a culture of responsible supervision and a commitment to scientific integrity, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they lead to formal retractions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.003, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.200. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this minor elevation could be an early signal of developing "echo chambers" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued observation is recommended to ensure the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.474, which is even lower than the secure national average of -0.450. This absence of risk signals demonstrates an exceptional level of due diligence in the selection of publication venues. By effectively avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects its reputational integrity and ensures its research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices, setting a benchmark for responsible dissemination.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.741, which is rated as significant and starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This finding indicates that the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, such a high score strongly suggests a systemic inflation of author lists that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. It is urgent for the institution to investigate whether this pattern stems from necessary massive collaborations or from widespread "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.002 is notably higher than the national average of 0.512, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This wide positive gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations than is typical for the country. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where a significant portion of its measured impact may be exogenous rather than a product of its own structural capacity. This metric invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence is derived from genuine internal leadership or from a supporting role in partnerships where it does not exercise primary intellectual control.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.263 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.654. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme productivity than its national peers. While high output can signify leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and highlights risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the secure national average of -0.246. This complete absence of risk signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with over-reliance on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.538 is higher than the national average of 0.387, indicating a higher exposure to this risk despite both being at a medium level. This suggests the university is more prone to practices of data fragmentation than its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap across publications can be a sign of "salami slicing," where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants review to ensure that all publications represent significant and coherent contributions to knowledge.
