| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.440 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.512 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.702 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.381 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.225 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.894 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.006 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.222 | 0.387 |
The Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines demonstrates a dual profile in scientific integrity, combining areas of exceptional procedural rigor with significant vulnerabilities in authorship and affiliation practices. The institution's overall integrity score of 0.269 reflects this balance. Key strengths are evident in its robust quality control mechanisms, with very low rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, alongside a prudent management of self-citation and a complete absence of risk related to institutional journals. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Hyper-Authored Output, which amplify national trends and suggest a need for clearer governance. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly prominent in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 9th in France), Environmental Science (22nd), and Veterinary (23rd). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks in authorship could challenge any commitment to academic transparency, potentially undermining the credibility of its research strengths. To secure its reputation and ensure long-term scientific leadership, the strategic priority should be to develop and implement clear policies on authorship and affiliation, aligning its operational practices with its evident research excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.440, a value that indicates a significant risk and is substantially higher than the national average of 0.648. This discrepancy suggests that the university not only reflects but actively amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the disproportionately high rate observed here constitutes a critical alert. It may signal systemic strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," a practice that can distort research assessment metrics and misrepresent the institution's genuine contribution to collaborative work. An internal review is recommended to ensure that affiliation policies are transparent and reflect substantive intellectual contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.512, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency indicates that the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly below the global average points to highly effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This result suggests that the institution's integrity culture is robust, with little evidence of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, reflecting a successful implementation of responsible research supervision.
The institution's Z-score of -0.702 is well within the low-risk category and is notably lower than the national average of -0.200. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this particularly low rate demonstrates a strong integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from endogamous impact inflation. This ensures the institution's work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.381 is in the very low-risk category, nearly identical to the national average of -0.450. Although the risk is minimal, the institution's score is slightly higher than the country's, representing a form of residual noise in an otherwise inert environment. This indicates that while the vast majority of research is published in reputable venues, a minuscule fraction may be appearing in channels of questionable quality. While not a significant concern, it highlights an opportunity for enhanced information literacy among researchers to ensure all institutional resources are directed toward high-integrity dissemination channels.
The institution exhibits a significant risk with a Z-score of 2.225, a figure that starkly contrasts with the national medium-risk average of 0.859. This pattern suggests the university is accentuating vulnerabilities present in the national system regarding authorship practices. In fields outside of "Big Science," where extensive author lists are not standard, such a high score can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to investigate whether this pattern stems from necessary massive collaborations or from questionable "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
With a Z-score of 1.894, the institution shows a medium-level risk, but its exposure is considerably higher than the national average of 0.512. This indicates a greater institutional propensity for this specific vulnerability. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent and exogenous, raising questions about whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.006 places it in the low-risk category, but it is higher than the national average of -0.654, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not currently widespread, the institution shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator, therefore, alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, pointing to nascent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is firmly in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the national average of -0.246. This signals a total operational silence in this risk area. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production and prevents the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication records.
The institution's Z-score of 0.222 indicates a medium-level risk, but it is notably lower than the national average of 0.387. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A lower score in this indicator suggests better control over "salami slicing," the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This indicates that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over the sheer volume of publications more effectively than its national peers.
