| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.075 | -1.075 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.248 | 0.248 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.089 | 0.089 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.303 | -0.303 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.529 | 0.529 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.045 | -0.045 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.515 | -0.515 |
The Université des Antilles demonstrates a generally robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.259 indicating a low-risk operational environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exemplary control over authorship and publication channel practices, reflected in very low-risk scores for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the medium-risk indicators for Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Hyper-Authored Output, which suggest systemic patterns that mirror the national context. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position in Guadeloupe, ranking first in key thematic areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. These areas of excellence are central to its mission to foster regional development and international influence. The identified medium-risk vulnerabilities, particularly those related to self-citation and retractions, could potentially undermine this mission by creating a perception of academic insularity and questioning the robustness of its quality controls, thereby hindering its goal of achieving "international influence." To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic ambitions, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in ethical authorship to develop targeted policies that enhance pre-publication quality assurance and promote broader international engagement, thus ensuring its regional leadership translates into undisputed global credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.075 is identical to the national average, indicating a complete alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This demonstrates a very low risk of strategic affiliation practices. The absence of disproportionately high rates suggests that affiliations are managed transparently, reflecting legitimate collaborations resulting from researcher mobility or partnerships, rather than attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.248, identical to the national figure, the institution's rate of retracted output reflects a systemic pattern, likely influenced by shared practices or regulations at a national level. This medium-risk score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges that are common across the country. A rate significantly higher than the global average, as suggested by this score, alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of 0.089 for institutional self-citation perfectly mirrors the national average, pointing to a systemic pattern in citation behavior. This medium-risk level suggests that, like its national peers, the institution may be developing "echo chambers" where its work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. While a degree of self-citation is natural, this value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.303, which aligns with the national average, represents a level of statistical normality for its context. This low-risk profile indicates that the publication of research in discontinued journals is not a significant issue. The institution demonstrates adequate due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational risks associated with channeling work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus preventing the waste of resources on "predatory" practices.
A Z-score of 0.529, identical to the national average, indicates that the institution's practices regarding hyper-authored output are part of a systemic pattern within its environment. This medium-risk signal suggests a need to analyze authorship practices more closely. When this pattern appears outside "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, it can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate "honorary" or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.045, matching the national average, demonstrates statistical normality in the balance between its overall research impact and the impact of the work it leads. This low-risk value indicates that the institution is not overly dependent on external partners for its scientific prestige. The data suggests a healthy equilibrium, where excellence metrics are reflective of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being solely derived from a strategic position in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary control.
With a Z-score of -1.413, identical to the national benchmark, the institution shows complete integrity synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security. This very low-risk score indicates an absence of authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship, "salami slicing," or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268, perfectly aligned with the national average, signals integrity synchrony and a shared environment of maximum security in this area. This very low-risk profile demonstrates that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals for publication. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that scientific production is validated through independent external peer review and maintains global visibility rather than using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate CVs.
Exhibiting a Z-score of -0.515, which is identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony and a commitment to robust publication ethics. This very low-risk score indicates that practices like "salami slicing"—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units—are not a concern. The institution's output appears to prioritize the communication of significant new knowledge over the mere volume of publications, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
