| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.181 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.454 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.380 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.026 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.170 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.883 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.212 | 0.387 |
The Université d'Orléans presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.216 indicating performance that is generally low-risk and well-managed within the national context. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of critical reputational importance, showing very low risk in publication channel selection (Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals) and commitment to external validation (Rate of Output in Institutional Journals). However, areas requiring strategic attention are concentrated in three medium-risk indicators: Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Redundant Output, and the gap between overall and self-led research impact. These moderate vulnerabilities contrast with the institution's clear thematic excellence, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the top national performers in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (France Rank: 6), Environmental Science (France Rank: 27), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (France Rank: 28). Although the institution's specific mission was not provided for this analysis, the identified risks—related to potential productivity inflation and dependency on external leadership—could challenge universal academic values of excellence and intellectual autonomy. By proactively addressing these moderate signals, the Université d'Orléans can further align its operational practices with its demonstrated research strengths, ensuring its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably sound.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.181, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.648. This suggests that the Université d'Orléans is effectively moderating a practice that is more widespread across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's more controlled performance indicates a differentiated management approach that, while not entirely eliminating the risk, mitigates the national trend towards potential "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining a clearer attribution of its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.127, the institution's risk level is low and broadly aligned with the national standard of -0.189. However, the slightly higher institutional score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events; a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture or a lack of methodological rigor. In this case, the signal is minor, but it suggests that a review of pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be beneficial to prevent any potential escalation and ensure that all retractions stem from a culture of responsible error correction rather than systemic issues.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.454, indicating a significantly lower rate of self-citation compared to the national average of -0.200. This superior performance suggests that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's low score is a positive indicator that it successfully avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.380 is in the very low-risk category, nearly identical to the national score of -0.450. This indicates an environment of maximum scientific security regarding the selection of publication venues. However, the institution's score is marginally higher, representing a faint residual noise in an otherwise inert risk environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals would constitute a critical alert, but the university's score confirms that its researchers exercise excellent due diligence, almost entirely avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards and thus protecting the institution from severe reputational risks.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.026, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This disparity shows that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high Z-score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. The Université d'Orléans's low score suggests its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, successfully filtering out the national trend and distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of 0.170, the institution shows a medium-risk gap, yet this is considerably more controlled than the national average of 0.512. This reflects a differentiated management strategy that moderates a common national dependency on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where prestige is dependent and exogenous. The university's smaller gap, while still notable, suggests it is building more structural, internal capacity for intellectual leadership than its national peers, fostering a healthier balance between gaining impact from collaborations and generating it through its own core research.
The university maintains a prudent profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.883 that is significantly lower (better) than the national low-risk average of -0.654. This indicates that the institution manages author productivity with greater rigor than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's very low score is a strong positive signal of a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the country's already very low-risk score of -0.246. This operational silence indicates a firm commitment to external, independent peer review. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy, limiting global visibility. The university's exemplary score confirms that it avoids these pitfalls, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and not through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.212 places it in the medium-risk category, but its performance is notably better than the national average of 0.387. This suggests a differentiated management approach that moderates a risk that appears common at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. While the university is not immune to this risk, its lower score indicates that it is more effectively controlling this behavior than its peers, though it remains an area where reinforcing policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over volume would be beneficial.
