| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.244 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.369 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.511 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.138 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.972 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.498 | 0.387 |
Université Bordeaux Montaigne presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.289 that indicates a performance superior to the national average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low-risk environment, particularly in its prudent selection of publication venues, avoidance of hyper-prolific authorship, and effective prevention of redundant publications. These areas of excellence are complemented by a solid performance in managing institutional self-citation and hyper-authorship. The primary area requiring strategic attention is the notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds intellectual leadership, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for visibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas are Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Social Sciences. This strong integrity profile directly supports its mission to be a "laboratory of ideas" with "independence and freedom of thought," as low-risk practices ensure genuine, externally validated contributions. However, the identified dependency on collaborative impact could challenge the long-term goal of being a self-sustaining "intellectual home." A strategic focus on fostering internal research leadership will be crucial to fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission of guiding students and researchers toward success.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.244, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.648. Although this indicator falls within a medium-risk category for both the university and the country, the institution demonstrates a more controlled and differentiated management of this practice. This suggests that while operating within a national context where multiple affiliations are common, Université Bordeaux Montaigne applies more rigorous oversight. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the university's moderated rate indicates a reduced risk of using this practice strategically to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a more conservative and transparent approach than its national peers.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution's rate of retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.189. While both scores reflect a low-risk environment, this minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible error correction. However, a rate that is even slightly elevated compared to the national baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less stringent than the norm. This signal, though not alarming, calls for a proactive review to ensure that institutional integrity and methodological rigor are consistently upheld before publication.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.369, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.200. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, but the university's lower rate signals a healthy reliance on external validation and a minimal risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This performance reinforces the idea that the institution's academic influence is driven by genuine recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The university exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.511 that is even lower than the already low national average of -0.450. This exceptional performance signals an absence of risk and highlights a key institutional strength. A high proportion of publications in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence, but the university's score indicates that its researchers are effectively avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a strong culture of information literacy in selecting dissemination venues.
The institution shows significant institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.138, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation. The university's controlled performance demonstrates a clear ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of 0.972, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk indicator compared to the national average of 0.512. This elevated score points to a significant dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a critical reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term scientific sustainability.
The university maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.413, far below the country's low-risk score of -0.654. This low-profile consistency, which surpasses the national standard, indicates an exceptionally healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The virtual absence of this phenomenon at the institution signals a strong safeguard against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.
The institution demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, showing a Z-score of -0.268 that is in total alignment with the country's very low-risk average of -0.246. This reflects a shared commitment to maximum scientific security in this domain. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and validating its quality through standard competitive channels.
The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.498 that stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment and has robust mechanisms to prevent data fragmentation. A high rate of redundant output typically points to the practice of dividing studies into 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity. The university's excellent performance shows a clear institutional commitment to publishing significant, coherent new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence.
