| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.701 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.548 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.382 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.043 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.760 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.261 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.274 | 0.387 |
The Université de Technologie de Compiègne presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.170 indicating a performance slightly above the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining structural independence and intellectual leadership, as evidenced by its very low risk in the impact gap (Ni_difference) and its effective mitigation of hyper-authorship and redundant publication practices, where it outperforms the national average. These strengths are complemented by excellent control over hyperprolific authorship and the use of institutional journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, and institutional self-citation, which are elevated compared to national benchmarks. The university's strong academic positioning, highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data showing a top-10 national rank in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (8th in France) and a leading position in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (13th in France), provides a solid foundation. To fully align with its mission of achieving "world-class" status through "creativity and innovation," it is crucial to address these identified vulnerabilities. A lack of external validation (high self-citation) or potential failures in quality control (retractions) could undermine the credibility of its innovations. By focusing on reinforcing its peer-review and affiliation policies, the university can ensure its operational practices fully reflect its commitment to excellence and societal responsibility.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.701, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.648. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, this score suggests the institution is more exposed to the underlying risk factors than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate warrants a strategic review. It signals a potential vulnerability to practices that could be perceived as "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, making it essential to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.051 compared to France's score of -0.189. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors leading to retractions than is typical for its peers. Retractions can be complex events, and some may result from the honest correction of errors. However, a rate significantly higher than the national average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges. This divergence alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to a need for qualitative verification by management to rule out recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
With a Z-score of 0.548, the institution's rate of self-citation is considerably higher than the French average of -0.200. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more susceptible to this risk than other institutions in the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate could signal concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers." This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the broader global community.
The institution's activity in this area is minimal (Z-score: -0.382), which is consistent with the very low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.450). However, the university's score, while firmly in the very low-risk category, is slightly less negative than the country's average. This represents a faint, residual signal in an otherwise secure landscape. Although the risk is negligible, this minor activity suggests that a small fraction of publications may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, reinforcing the continuous need for due diligence in selecting dissemination channels.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent at the national level. With a Z-score of -1.043, it maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that the institution's internal governance and control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic pressures toward author list inflation. This strong performance indicates a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution exhibits a strong and independent profile, completely avoiding a risk dynamic observed nationally. Its very low Z-score of -1.760 contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.512. This excellent result signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated from within. It demonstrates that its high-impact research is a product of its own intellectual leadership, reflecting true internal capacity rather than a strategic reliance on collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in this area (Z-score: -1.261), a finding that aligns with the low-risk environment observed nationally (Z-score: -0.654). This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The university's performance suggests it is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of extreme publication volumes.
The institution's practices are in perfect alignment with the national context, showing a complete absence of risk signals. Both the university (Z-score: -0.268) and the country (Z-score: -0.246) operate in an environment of maximum scientific security for this indicator. This integrity synchrony demonstrates that the institution avoids academic endogamy and does not depend on its in-house journals as a means to bypass independent external peer review, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels to achieve global visibility.
The institution effectively counters a risk that is more pronounced within the national scientific system. Its low-risk Z-score of -0.274 stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.387, indicating strong institutional resilience. This suggests that the university's culture promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the practice of fragmenting data into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity. This approach strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a commitment to generating significant new knowledge rather than simply maximizing output volume.
