| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.687 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.858 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.338 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.477 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.567 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.818 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.002 | 0.387 |
Université de La Rochelle demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.391 that indicates performance superior to the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, publications in discontinued journals, and redundant publications, signaling strong quality control and ethical oversight. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium rate of institutional self-citation and hyper-authored output. These results are contextualized by the university's outstanding national positioning in key thematic areas, including Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 37th in France), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (62nd), and Environmental Science (66th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the overall integrity is high, the identified risks of potential academic endogamy (self-citation) and authorship dilution could subtly undermine the institution's mission of "excellence" and its "proximity to... the world of business," which rely on external validation and transparent accountability. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university reviews its internal citation and authorship guidelines, ensuring that its demonstrated operational integrity translates into unimpeachable scientific influence and collaborative transparency.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.687, indicating a low rate of multiple affiliations, which contrasts favorably with the national Z-score of 0.648, a medium-risk level for France. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate demonstrates a capacity to avoid the dynamics of "affiliation shopping" or strategic credit inflation that may be more prevalent at the national level, ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with clarity and justification.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency reflects a shared commitment to quality within the French academic system, but the university's particularly low score highlights its exemplary pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This absence of risk signals suggests that processes for methodological and ethical review are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate of retractions might indicate and reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.858, a medium-risk level that represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.200, which is in the low-risk category. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that its academic influence might be oversized by internal validation rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a point that warrants internal review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.338 and the national Z-score of -0.450 are both in the very low-risk range, indicating a healthy national environment regarding the selection of publication venues. The institution's score, while minimal, represents a slight residual noise in an otherwise inert context. This suggests that while the risk is almost non-existent, a very small fraction of its output is channeled through media that may not meet international standards. This serves as a reminder for continuous vigilance in promoting information literacy among researchers to ensure due diligence and avoid any reputational risk associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of 0.477, the institution registers a medium risk for hyper-authored output, a level consistent with the national Z-score of 0.859. However, the university's score is significantly lower than the country's average, pointing to differentiated management of this issue. This suggests that while operating in a national context where extensive author lists are common, the institution applies more moderate practices. This effective management helps distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation, thereby better preserving individual accountability and transparency compared to the national trend.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.567, a low-risk value that indicates a strong alignment between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This performance shows significant institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national Z-score of 0.512, which falls into the medium-risk category. The national figure suggests a broader trend of dependency on external partners for impact, but this university bucks that trend. Its low score demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, stemming from real internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, thus ensuring its long-term sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.818 is in the low-risk category, reflecting a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score of -0.654). This lower-than-average rate of hyperprolific authors indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. By effectively managing extreme individual publication outputs, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of meaningful intellectual contribution, ensuring a sustainable balance that protects the integrity of its scientific record and the well-being of its researchers.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk range, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony with the national Z-score of -0.246. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows a clear commitment to external validation. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby maximizing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.002, a very low-risk value that signals a state of preventive isolation from national trends. This result is particularly noteworthy when contrasted with the French national Z-score of 0.387, which indicates a medium risk for this practice. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, demonstrating a strong culture against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity metrics not only strengthens the reliability of its scientific evidence but also shows respect for the academic review system.
