| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.127 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.333 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.329 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.279 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.999 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.004 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.210 | 0.387 |
Universite du Havre demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.239 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for independent innovation, evidenced by a minimal gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its own leadership, and a culture that effectively curbs hyper-prolific authorship and hyper-authorship, showcasing a commitment to quality over quantity. These positive indicators are particularly noteworthy as they represent a clear resilience against contrary trends at the national level. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most competitive thematic areas nationally include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Medicine, Computer Science, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. This strong integrity framework directly supports the university's mission to foster "research and innovation" and uphold "social responsibility." However, the moderate risk level associated with retracted publications presents a potential conflict with these values, suggesting that a review of pre-publication quality controls is necessary to ensure that all disseminated work aligns with the institution's commitment to excellence. By leveraging its solid foundation and addressing this specific vulnerability, Universite du Havre can further solidify its reputation as a leader in responsible and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.127, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is significantly more controlled than the national average of 0.648. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a practice that is more pronounced across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or strategic partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers indicates a more measured and potentially more rigorous policy regarding the declaration of affiliations, reducing the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
With a Z-score of 0.333, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.189. This indicates a greater sensitivity to factors leading to publication retractions compared to its peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate notably higher than the national average suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to understand the root causes and prevent recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.329, demonstrating more rigorous control over this indicator than the national standard of -0.200. This low-risk score reflects a healthy integration with the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, the institution's performance indicates it successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers'. By ensuring its work is validated through external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, the university safeguards against endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is earned through broad community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.279 signifies a low level of risk, yet it represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.450). This suggests the presence of minor risk signals that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the risk here is low, this score indicates that a small portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, pointing to a potential need for enhanced information literacy to prevent reputational harm and the misallocation of resources to predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.999, the institution demonstrates remarkable resilience, maintaining a low-risk profile in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that effective internal control mechanisms are in place, acting as a filter against systemic national trends. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's strong performance in this area signals a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving transparency and individual responsibility.
The university exhibits an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.004, placing it in the very low-risk category and demonstrating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk national trend (Z-score of 0.512). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. The university's minimal gap, however, is a clear sign of sustainability, proving that its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not merely from strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, showing an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the low-risk national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive indicator of a healthy research environment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent score demonstrates a culture that avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thus prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's performance is in total alignment with the national environment (Z-score of -0.246), reflecting a shared standard of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony is highly positive. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. By maintaining a very low rate of publication in its own journals, the university effectively mitigates the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production bypasses potential 'fast tracks' and is instead validated through independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and credibility.
The institution displays strong institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.210, effectively mitigating the medium-risk trend prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.387). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully preventing the practice of data fragmentation. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's controlled performance shows a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than distorting the scientific evidence, a practice that upholds research integrity and respects the academic review system.
