| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.549 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.674 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.061 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.288 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.455 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.910 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.628 |
The Ecole Nationale d'Agriculture de Meknes presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.497 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and specific, significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust control over its research practices, showing very low risk in hyper-authorship, dependency on external leadership, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output. These strengths are foundational to its scientific credibility. However, this solid base is challenged by significant alerts in the rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, which require immediate strategic attention. Thematically, the institution's leadership is evident in its high national rankings in core areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (17th in Morocco), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (20th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (25th), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This aligns perfectly with its mission to advance agricultural science and train skilled engineers. Yet, the identified integrity risks could undermine this mission by creating a perception that institutional credit and individual productivity are being artificially inflated, which conflicts with the principles of excellence and responsible development support. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the institution can leverage its clear thematic strengths and solid governance in other areas to secure its position as a leader in agricultural research with unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 4.549 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.043. This suggests that the center is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present within the Moroccan scientific system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The significant deviation from the national norm indicates an urgent need to review institutional policies on affiliation to ensure that they promote genuine collaboration rather than metric inflation, thereby safeguarding the transparency of the institution's contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.174, though both remain in the low-risk category. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows faint signals of risk that are less pronounced in the broader national context. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate that begins to creep above the norm warrants a review. It serves as a proactive signal to reinforce pre-publication quality control mechanisms to prevent any potential systemic failures from escalating.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.674, which is considerably lower than the national average of 2.028. This indicates a differentiated and more effective management of publication practices compared to the national trend. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the country's higher average points to a more widespread risk of 'echo chambers'. The institution, by contrast, demonstrates a healthier balance, suggesting its work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than relying on internal dynamics. This moderation of self-citation strengthens the external perception of its academic influence and mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.061 is significantly lower than the national average of 1.078, even though both fall within the medium-risk band. This demonstrates a more discerning approach to journal selection than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it exposes an institution to severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices. By effectively moderating a risk that appears more common in the country, the institution shows better control in safeguarding its resources and reputation, though continued vigilance in information literacy for researchers is advised.
With a Z-score of -1.288, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk in this area, a figure that is even lower than the country's low-risk score of -0.325. This alignment with a low-risk national standard demonstrates a consistent and healthy approach to authorship. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and appropriately reflect individual contributions, avoiding the pressure of 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -2.455 is exceptionally low, indicating no risk and surpassing the already low-risk national average of -0.751. This result is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and internal capacity. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. The institution's negative score, however, demonstrates the opposite: the impact of the research it leads is robust and self-sufficient. This reflects a sustainable model where scientific excellence is generated structurally from within, rather than being borrowed through strategic collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of 2.910 represents a significant risk and a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.158. This atypical level of risk activity is an outlier within the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. An urgent review is needed to ensure that institutional pressures are not prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing it in a state of complete alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding the potential conflicts of interest associated with in-house journals. Excessive dependence on such journals can create academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent peer review. The institution's very low score confirms its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, using external channels to disseminate its research and avoiding the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.
With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low risk of redundant publications, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.628. This suggests a successful preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's excellent result indicates a culture that values substantive contributions over volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and respecting the academic review system.
