Institut Superieur de Gestion de Tunis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Institut Superieur de Gestion de Tunis demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, characterized by significant strengths in operational control and specific, identifiable areas for strategic improvement. The institution's profile reveals very low risk in hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificity, and use of institutional journals, alongside commendable resilience in managing retractions and institutional self-citation, where it outperforms national averages. However, this robust foundation is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in multiple affiliations, and more notably, in the publication in discontinued journals and the rate of redundant output, which are higher than the national benchmark. These vulnerabilities require attention as they could undermine the institution's stated mission and "culture of excellence." The Institute's strong reputation, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Social Sciences (4th in Tunisia), Business, Management and Accounting (8th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (9th), is a valuable asset. To protect this standing, it is crucial to align its publication practices with its academic strengths. Addressing the risks of channeling research into low-quality journals and fragmenting studies directly supports the mission's emphasis on "relevance of the content" and ensures its long-standing reputation for excellence remains untarnished. A proactive strategy focusing on enhancing information literacy and reinforcing publication ethics will not only mitigate these risks but also amplify the impact of its core academic achievements.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.887 places it in a medium-risk category, yet this is a more controlled position compared to the national average of 2.525. This suggests that while the practice of researchers holding multiple affiliations is a systemic pattern within the country, the institution exercises a degree of differentiated management that moderates this trend. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers indicates a more robust governance framework, though the signal remains active and warrants continued observation to ensure affiliations reflect genuine collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.367). This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national context is a strong indicator of successful pre-publication quality control and a healthy integrity culture. This performance suggests that the institution's supervision and methodological rigor are preventing the types of systemic failures that may be occurring elsewhere, thereby safeguarding its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.570, which is significantly healthier than the national average of 0.360 (medium risk). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience against the risk of academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's low score indicates it successfully avoids the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, a risk more prevalent at the national level.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.992 represents a medium-risk signal that is considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.499. This indicates a high institutional exposure to this particular risk factor. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.315, the institution presents a very low-risk profile, aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national standard (-1.066). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The complete absence of this risk signal at the institution confirms that its authorship practices are appropriate for its disciplines, reinforcing a culture where credit is assigned based on meaningful contribution and transparency is maintained.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.526 reflects a low-risk profile that is more prudent than the national average (-0.061). This indicates that the institution manages its collaborative processes with greater rigor than the national standard, ensuring its impact is sustainable. A large positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This institution's score, however, suggests that its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and that it maintains a strong leadership role in its collaborations, a sign of a robust and autonomous research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, showing a stronger position than the already low-risk national average (-0.892). This low-profile consistency signals a healthy balance between academic productivity and scientific quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a prioritization of metrics over integrity. The absence of this signal at the institution reinforces its commitment to a research culture where substantive contributions are valued over sheer quantity, aligning with the highest standards of scientific practice.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average, which also sits in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment within the country to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses potential conflicts of interest and undergoes independent, external peer review. This practice is fundamental for achieving global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels, reflecting an environment of maximum scientific security.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.765, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure, as it is substantially greater than the national average of 0.289. This significant deviation suggests the institution is more prone to this practice than its peers. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong alert for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system. The elevated score warrants a review of institutional incentives to ensure they promote significant new knowledge over publication volume.