| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.130 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.372 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.285 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.388 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.123 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.881 | 0.387 |
The Universite du Littoral Cote d'Opale presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.019 that indicates general alignment with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas of authorial practice and publication channels, with very low risk signals for Hyperprolific Authors and Output in Institutional Journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to Multiple Affiliations and Redundant Output, alongside a moderate deviation in Institutional Self-Citation, all of which exceed national averages. These vulnerabilities contrast with the institution's notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (45th in France), Earth and Planetary Sciences (63rd), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (73rd), and Physics and Astronomy (76th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. As the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, it is crucial to note that unaddressed integrity risks—such as those suggesting a focus on metric inflation over substantive contribution—can fundamentally undermine any mission centered on academic excellence, transparency, and social responsibility. A proactive approach to reinforcing policies in the identified medium-risk areas will be essential to protect its reputational capital and ensure its research impact is both robust and sustainable.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.130, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.648. Although this indicator is at a medium-risk level for both the institution and the country, the university shows a much greater propensity for this dynamic. This high exposure suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this pronounced signal warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that co-authorship and affiliation practices are transparent and reflect genuine scientific collaboration rather than a pursuit of quantitative advantage.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution's rate of retracted publications is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.189. This alignment indicates that the level of risk is as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this score suggests that the institution's quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms are functioning at a standard level. The data does not point to systemic failures but rather to a responsible handling of scientific correction, which is a sign of a healthy research environment.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.372, which represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the average score is -0.200 (a low-risk value). This difference indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated internally more often than is typical. This trend warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation and suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.285 in this indicator, a low-risk value that nonetheless represents a slight divergence from the national average of -0.450, which is in the very low-risk category. This finding suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the university shows minor signals of risk activity in an area where the rest of the country is almost entirely inert. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may be due to a lack of information, but these isolated cases serve as a minor alert. They highlight an opportunity to reinforce due diligence and information literacy among researchers in selecting dissemination channels to completely avoid reputational risks associated with low-quality or 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.388, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the national average of 0.859, which falls into the medium-risk category. This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent in its environment. The university appears to successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and practices of author list inflation. This indicates a healthy governance of authorship that promotes individual accountability and transparency.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.123, a low-risk value that reflects strong institutional resilience against the national trend, where the average is 0.512 (medium risk). This score indicates that the university maintains a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact generated in collaboration and the impact of research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. Unlike the national tendency, which suggests a greater dependency on external partners for prestige, the institution demonstrates robust internal capacity. This avoids the sustainability risk of having an academic reputation that is primarily dependent and exogenous rather than structurally self-supported.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a profile of low-profile consistency that is even more secure than the national low-risk average of -0.654. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and reinforces the national standard of responsible productivity. This result suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution. It points to a research environment where the integrity of the scientific record is highly valued.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in total alignment with the national average of -0.246, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The data confirms that the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review and global visibility, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.881 indicates a medium-risk level, reflecting a high exposure to this practice that is more pronounced than the national medium-risk average of 0.387. This suggests that the university is more prone than its peers to publishing patterns that may indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' While citing previous work is essential, this elevated value alerts to a potential tendency to divide coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants a review to ensure that publications represent significant and substantive contributions to knowledge.
