| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.491 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.457 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.478 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.427 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.685 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.957 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.044 | 0.387 |
The Universite d'Angers presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.071 that indicates a general alignment with best practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous quality control and ethical publication standards, demonstrating exceptionally low risk in areas such as retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship. However, areas of medium risk related to collaboration dynamics—specifically the rate of multiple affiliations and the gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research—suggest strategic challenges that require attention. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong international standing in key research areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it prominently in Medicine, Energy, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The identified risks, while not critical, directly intersect with the university's mission to foster "innovative research and partnerships" and be "open to Europe and the world." To fully realize this mission with unimpeachable integrity, it is essential to ensure that collaborative practices not only expand reach but also build sustainable internal capacity and uphold transparent authorship. By refining its strategies for partnership and intellectual leadership, the Universite d'Angers can leverage its solid ethical foundation to further enhance its global impact and commitment to the responsible dissemination of knowledge.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.491, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.648. This indicates that while a medium level of multiple affiliations is a shared characteristic of the national academic system, the university shows a greater propensity for this practice. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate suggests the institution is more exposed to the associated risks. It serves as a signal to review whether these affiliations consistently reflect substantive collaborations or if they are being used strategically to inflate institutional credit, a practice sometimes referred to as “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national benchmark of -0.189. This superior performance strongly suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are not just effective but exemplary. Retractions can be complex, but such a minimal incidence indicates a robust institutional integrity culture where potential methodological flaws or errors are successfully identified and corrected internally, preventing systemic failures and reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.457, a value that indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.200. This demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this institution's very low rate signals a healthy integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.478 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.450, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This integrity synchrony indicates a near-total absence of publications in journals that have been discontinued due to ethical or quality concerns. This performance highlights a strong institutional commitment to due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively protecting its reputation and research investment from the risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.427, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.859. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability. The university's more controlled rate indicates a healthier balance, suggesting it is more effective at distinguishing between necessary massive collaborations and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.685, the institution shows a wider impact gap than the national average of 0.512. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone to relying on external partners for its citation impact. A significant positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether the university's scientific prestige is primarily dependent and exogenous, highlighting a need to strengthen internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership, not just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.957 is exceptionally low, placing it in a position of strength even when compared to the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.654). This near-absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy academic environment that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication rates can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low indicator suggests the institution effectively avoids potential imbalances, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.246, indicating total alignment with a national environment where reliance on institutional journals is minimal. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, which enhances its global visibility and credibility, rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.044, a figure that, while falling into the medium risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.387. This reflects a differentiated management of publication practices, where the university moderates a risk that is more prevalent in the country. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The university's more controlled performance suggests a culture that values the dissemination of significant new knowledge over the artificial multiplication of publication entries, thus upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
