| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.347 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.418 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.708 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.389 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.661 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.612 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.299 | 0.387 |
The Université de Perpignan Via Domitia presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.063, indicating performance that is closely aligned with global benchmarks. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low-risk environment, particularly in areas concerning author productivity and publication channels, with exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authors, output in discontinued journals, and publication in its own institutional journals. However, this stability is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the rates of retracted output and institutional self-citation, which are notably higher than the national average and warrant strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key academic strengths are concentrated in Arts and Humanities, Chemistry, and Social Sciences. As the institution's specific mission statement was not provided for this analysis, a direct alignment assessment is not possible. Nevertheless, the identified vulnerabilities, such as a higher-than-average retraction rate, could challenge the universal academic goals of excellence and public trust. To fortify its scientific standing, it is recommended that the university leverage its robust control over productivity metrics to develop targeted policies that enhance pre-publication quality assurance and promote broader external validation of its research, thereby ensuring its academic contributions are both impactful and irreproachable.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.347, which is below the national average of 0.648. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management where the university successfully moderates a risk that is otherwise common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's more controlled rate indicates that it is less exposed than its national peers to practices like strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at inflating institutional credit. This demonstrates effective governance in managing collaborative frameworks and ensuring affiliations reflect substantive partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.189. This disparity indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A high rate of retractions suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological or ethical issues that require immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational damage.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.708, a figure that marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.200. This significant difference suggests the institution is more prone to this risk than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential "echo chamber" where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.389 is exceptionally low, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.450. In an environment that is virtually free of this risk, this minimal value represents only residual noise. It confirms that the university's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues, almost entirely avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice protects the institution from reputational harm and ensures research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality outlets.
The institution's Z-score of 0.661 is notably lower than the French national average of 0.859. This reflects a case of differentiated management, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in "Big Science," the university's lower rate suggests a healthier approach to authorship. It indicates a reduced risk of author list inflation and a stronger culture of assigning credit based on meaningful contributions, thereby upholding transparency and individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.612, the institution demonstrates strong resilience against a systemic risk prevalent in the country, where the average score is 0.512. While it is common for institutions to depend on external partners for impact, this university's negative score indicates that the research it leads is just as impactful, if not more so, than its collaborative output. This signals a high degree of scientific autonomy and robust internal capacity, suggesting its prestige is built on a sustainable, structural foundation rather than being dependent on external intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it favorably against the already low national average of -0.654. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. This result is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment, free from pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or an excessive focus on quantity over quality. It suggests that the institution fosters a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued above artificially inflated publication metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 shows an integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.246. This total alignment reflects a shared commitment to maximum scientific security in this area. By avoiding the use of in-house journals for publication, the institution effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent, external peer review. This practice reinforces the credibility of its scientific output and promotes its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.299 is in the low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effective at mitigating a risk more common in its environment. The low incidence of significant bibliographic overlap suggests that researchers are not engaging in "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant findings protects the integrity of the scientific record and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
