| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.198 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.032 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.553 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.520 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.401 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.051 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.233 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.347 | 0.387 |
The Université François Rabelais de Tours presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.162 indicating a performance that is generally well-aligned with best practices, though with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels, evidenced by very low-risk indicators for output in discontinued journals, institutional journals, and the near absence of hyperprolific authorship. However, moderate risks are observed in the rates of retracted output and redundant publications ('salami slicing'), which are notably higher than the national average and warrant review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates significant thematic leadership nationally in areas such as Veterinary (ranked 4th in France), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (10th), Energy (14th), and Chemistry (17th). To fully support its mission of promoting "equality, diversity and parity," it is crucial to address the identified integrity vulnerabilities. Practices that compromise the scientific record, even if moderate, can undermine the public trust and institutional credibility required to champion social values effectively. By reinforcing its quality control and publication ethics frameworks, the university can ensure its scientific excellence provides an unshakeable foundation for its social commitments, solidifying its role as a leader in both research and community values.
The institution shows a moderate rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: 0.198), a common practice within the French academic system (Z-score: 0.648). However, the university demonstrates more controlled management of this indicator than the national average, suggesting a balanced approach that reflects legitimate collaborations rather than strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. This ability to moderate a nationally prevalent trend points to effective internal policies that successfully distinguish between productive partnerships and practices that could dilute institutional identity.
The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.032) presents a moderate deviation from the national trend, where such events are less common (Z-score: -0.189). This divergence suggests the institution is more sensitive to certain risk factors than its peers. A rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than elsewhere in the country. This warrants a qualitative review by management to distinguish between the responsible correction of honest errors and possible recurring methodological issues requiring systemic intervention.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.553 that is notably lower than the national average (Z-score: -0.200). This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. This low value demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and integration into the global scientific conversation, effectively avoiding the risks of scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers' that can artificially inflate the perception of institutional impact.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in the publication of articles in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of -0.520. This near-complete absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already low national average (Z-score: -0.450). This performance constitutes a critical strength, demonstrating exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and confirming that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality publishing practices, thereby protecting its reputation and research investment.
With a Z-score of 0.401 for hyper-authored output, the institution shows a moderate signal in an area where the national context is more pronounced (Z-score: 0.859). This indicates differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. This controlled rate suggests the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration, which is legitimate in certain fields, and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The university shows a very small gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 0.051). This performance reflects differentiated management compared to the national trend, where this gap is significantly wider (Z-score: 0.512). A low value here is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability, suggesting that the institution's prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than being dependent on external partners. This ensures its excellence is structural and not merely a result of strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.233. This near-total absence of risk signals is consistent with, and even stronger than, the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.654). This result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, suggesting that the institutional culture does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or the artificial inflation of publication counts. It reflects an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer volume.
The university's rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268) is in total alignment with the national environment (Z-score: -0.246), which is characterized by maximum scientific security in this area. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution is not reliant on internal channels for dissemination. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' is a notable area of concern, with a Z-score of 1.347. This indicates high exposure, as the university is significantly more prone to showing these alert signals than the national average (Z-score: 0.387). This high value warns of a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific record, suggesting an urgent need to review institutional incentives and promote research that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
