| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.451 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.725 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.452 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.588 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.625 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.014 | 0.387 |
Université Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris 1 demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.349 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than the national average. The institution exhibits very low to low risk levels across eight of the nine indicators, establishing a clear culture of responsible research practices. Key strengths are observed in the minimal rates of hyperprolific authorship, publication in discontinued journals, and institutional self-citation, which collectively signal a commitment to quality over quantity and a healthy integration within the global scientific community. This solid foundation of integrity directly supports the institution's outstanding academic positioning, as evidenced by its top-tier national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 2nd in France), Arts and Humanities (5th), and Social Sciences (9th). The only area requiring strategic attention is the medium-risk gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. While the institution's mission was not specified, this overall low-risk profile is intrinsically aligned with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. However, the identified impact dependency could, in the long term, challenge the perception of endogenous excellence. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its strong integrity framework to foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its prestigious reputation is built upon a sustainable and autonomous research capacity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.451, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.648. This result suggests a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent at the country level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the national context shows a tendency towards higher rates, which can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's low score indicates that it effectively avoids these dynamics, maintaining a clear and transparent accounting of its academic contributions without resorting to "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its institutional branding.
With a Z-score of -0.033 compared to the national average of -0.189, the institution shows signs of an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, the university's rate is slightly higher than the national standard. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when they involve honest error correction. However, a rate that edges above its peers, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may warrant a proactive review. This minor signal serves as a reminder that systemic vigilance is necessary to prevent any potential escalation and ensure that vulnerabilities in methodological rigor or integrity culture are addressed before they become systemic.
The institution's Z-score of -0.725 is significantly lower than the country's average of -0.200, reflecting a prudent and externally-focused research profile. This demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. While some self-citation is natural, the institution's very low rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This strong external orientation confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition by the global community, not on endogamous dynamics that can artificially inflate perceived impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.452 is almost identical to the national average of -0.450, indicating a state of integrity synchrony. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows that the university, like its national peers, exercises excellent due diligence in selecting publication channels. A high rate in this indicator would be a critical alert for reputational risk, but the observed very low score confirms that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals, ensuring that scientific output is channeled through reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.588 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.859, a clear sign of institutional resilience. The university appears to have effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed in the country. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability and signal the presence of 'honorary' authorships. The institution's low score suggests a culture that values meaningful contribution and transparency in authorship, successfully filtering out the national trend towards potentially inflated author lists.
With a Z-score of 0.625, which is higher than the national average of 0.512, the institution shows a high exposure to dependency risk. This score indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to a wide gap where its overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research it leads. This situation signals a potential risk to sustainability, suggesting that a substantial portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structurally embedded. This metric invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence is derived from its own internal capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.654. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's very low score is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.246, reflecting a clear integrity synchrony. This alignment demonstrates a shared commitment at both institutional and national levels to avoiding academic endogamy. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass rigorous external peer review. The university's very low score confirms its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, using external channels to disseminate its research and ensuring its work is judged by independent international standards.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.014, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.387. This difference points to strong institutional resilience against the practice of 'salami slicing.' While the national context shows a medium-level risk of researchers fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, the university maintains a very low rate. This suggests a culture that values the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
