| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.375 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.172 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.456 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.386 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.226 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.185 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.195 | 0.387 |
The Université de Cergy-Pontoise demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable overall risk score of -0.215. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, often outperforming national benchmarks. This operational rigor is complemented by strong academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting particular national prominence in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Computer Science. However, a notable area for strategic attention is the significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds leadership, suggesting a strong dependency on international collaborations for its scientific prestige. While this aligns with its mission of fostering "international cooperation," it poses a long-term risk to developing autonomous research excellence. To fully realize its mission of contributing to the "public service in higher education," the university is encouraged to leverage its collaborative networks to strategically build and showcase its own intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its reputation is both structurally sound and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.375 is notably lower than the national average of 0.648. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a practice that appears more common 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. By maintaining a more controlled rate than its national peers, the institution effectively mitigates the risk of "affiliation shopping" and presents a more transparent account of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national standard (-0.189). This indicates that its internal processes are managed with exceptional rigor. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate below the national average suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are particularly effective. This robust oversight serves as a strong defense for its integrity culture, systemically minimizing the potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.172, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.200, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this minor elevation compared to the national context could be an early indicator of a tendency towards scientific isolation or an "echo chamber." It is a subtle signal that merits monitoring to ensure the institution's academic influence continues to be validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.456 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.450, demonstrating integrity synchrony and total alignment with a secure national environment. This near-zero presence in discontinued journals is a critical indicator of excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It confirms that the institution's scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding severe reputational risks and the wasting of resources on "predatory" practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.386 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.859, reflecting a differentiated management of this risk factor. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this more moderate rate suggests the university is successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like author list inflation. By controlling this trend more effectively than its national peers, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 1.226 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.512, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners, with its global impact being high but the impact of research it leads being comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its excellence metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from its own structural capacity. This invites a deep reflection on how to build and consolidate its own intellectual leadership.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.185, the institution shows a low-profile consistency that surpasses the already low national standard (-0.654). The virtual absence of this risk signal is a strong positive indicator. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This result demonstrates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.246, reflecting an integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. A negligible dependence on in-house journals is a strong sign that the university avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This commitment to independent external peer review ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, limiting the risk of academic endogamy and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.195 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.387, indicating a differentiated management that moderates a risk more common in the country. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's lower score suggests a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reducing the burden on the peer review system.
