| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.259 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.180 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.258 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.039 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.716 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.016 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.910 | 0.387 |
The Université de Caen Basse-Normandie presents a generally robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.256. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of retracted output and publication in its own journals, indicating strong pre-publication quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a critical vulnerability in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is significantly elevated and requires immediate strategic attention. Areas of moderate concern, including hyper-authorship, dependency on external leadership for impact, and redundant publications, also warrant review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly notable in several key areas, including a top-10 national ranking in Veterinary sciences, alongside strong performances in Environmental Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Psychology. As the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, aligning these findings with universal academic values is crucial. The identified risk of inflated affiliations, if unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of its research and contradict the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent to a higher education institution. A proactive approach to reinforcing authorship and affiliation policies will be essential to protect its reputation and ensure its contributions remain transparent and impactful.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.259 in this indicator, a value that is critically higher than the national average of 0.648. This discrepancy suggests that the university is not merely participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present within the French research system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a systemic issue that requires an urgent audit. Such a significant deviation points to a potential strategic misuse of affiliations, where "affiliation shopping" may be employed to inflate institutional credit, a practice that compromises transparency and the fair attribution of scientific work.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.189. This near-total absence of risk signals is a strong positive indicator, aligning with a national context of high scientific security. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate strongly suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are robust and effective. This reflects a mature culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are identified and corrected internally, safeguarding the quality of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.180, which is statistically aligned with the French national average of -0.200. This demonstrates a level of risk that is normal and expected for its context. A certain degree of self-citation is natural as it reflects the progression of established research lines. The university's adherence to the national norm indicates a healthy equilibrium, successfully building upon its own work while avoiding the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This balance ensures its research remains engaged with and validated by the broader international community, preventing the endogamous inflation of its academic impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.258 indicates a slight divergence from the national benchmark, which stands at a very low -0.450. Although the overall risk remains low, this gap reveals that the university has a marginally higher propensity for publishing in journals that are later discontinued compared to the near-absence of this practice across the rest of the country. This subtle signal suggests a potential inconsistency in the due diligence applied when selecting publication venues. It serves as a constructive alert to reinforce researcher training and information literacy, ensuring that institutional output is consistently channeled through reputable and stable media to avoid any associated reputational risk.
The university's Z-score of 1.039 is moderately elevated compared to the national average of 0.859, indicating a higher exposure to the risks associated with hyper-authorship. While both the institution and the country show a medium level of activity, the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. This pattern warrants a closer examination to distinguish between legitimate, large-scale scientific collaborations and potential instances of author list inflation. An elevated rate can dilute individual accountability and transparency, signaling a possible trend towards 'honorary' or political authorship practices that should be addressed through clearer institutional guidelines.
With a Z-score of 0.716, the institution displays a wider impact gap than the national average of 0.512, suggesting a higher exposure to this strategic vulnerability. This indicates that the university's overall scientific prestige is more heavily dependent on research conducted in collaboration with external partners than on work where it holds intellectual leadership. While collaboration is vital, such a significant gap signals a potential sustainability risk, where excellence may be perceived as more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and elevate the impact of internally-led research to build a more resilient and autonomous scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.016, while in the low-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of -0.654. This difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while hyperprolificacy is not a systemic problem, its signals are more present here than in the broader national context. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a prompt for a preventative review of institutional culture and incentive structures to ensure that the pursuit of high productivity does not inadvertently lead to practices like coercive authorship or a compromise in the quality and integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, performing even better than the already minimal national average of -0.246. This represents a state of total operational silence in this risk area. By largely avoiding publication in its own journals, the university demonstrates an exemplary commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice mitigates any potential conflicts of interest where an institution might act as both judge and party, thereby maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research and upholding the highest standards of academic integrity.
With a Z-score of 0.910, the institution shows a significantly higher incidence of redundant output compared to the national average of 0.387. This high exposure suggests that the practice of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a single cohesive study into multiple, minimally distinct publications—is more prevalent here than in the surrounding environment. This pattern artificially inflates productivity metrics at the cost of scientific substance, distorting the available evidence and placing an unnecessary burden on the peer-review system. It signals a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the communication of significant, new knowledge over the sheer volume of publications.
