| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.486 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.164 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.009 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.143 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-4.928 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.143 | 0.628 |
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Rabat demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of -0.423. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, output in institutional journals, and the gap between its global impact and the impact of its led research. These results indicate a culture of responsible authorship and sustainable, internally driven research excellence. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to multiple affiliations and moderate risks in redundant output and publications in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine the institution's mission to foster "scientific and technological research" and ensure the credible "dissemination of knowledge." The institution's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in core fields such as Engineering, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Computer Science, Energy, and Environmental Science, provides a solid foundation. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the institution develops targeted policies to manage the identified medium-risk areas, thereby safeguarding its reputation and enhancing the long-term impact of its scientific contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.486, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.043. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, this score suggests the institution is more exposed to the underlying drivers of this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a need to review collaboration patterns to ensure they are not being used as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or as a form of “affiliation shopping,” but rather reflect genuine and substantive scientific cooperation.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.174. This performance, situated within a low-risk context, suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are particularly effective. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the norm is a positive indicator of a strong integrity culture, reflecting robust methodological rigor and responsible supervision that effectively prevent the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.
The institution shows remarkable resilience, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.164 in an environment where the national trend is of medium risk (Z-score: 2.028). This indicates that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping its rate low, the institution effectively avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This ensures that its academic influence is validated by the global scientific community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management with a Z-score of 0.009, effectively moderating a risk that appears more common at the national level (Z-score: 1.078). This proactive stance is a critical safeguard against reputational damage. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By maintaining a very low rate, the institution shows a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.143, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is exceptionally low, performing even better than the low-risk national standard (-0.325). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy and consistent approach to authorship. This practice ensures that author lists are not artificially inflated, which helps to maintain individual accountability and transparency in research contributions. It suggests a culture where authorship is tied to meaningful participation rather than 'honorary' or political considerations.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -4.928, far below the already low-risk national average of -0.751. This indicates a negligible gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds an intellectual leadership role. This result signals a highly sustainable research model where scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity. It confirms that the institution's excellence metrics are not dependent on an exogenous or strategic positioning in collaborations but are a direct result of its own robust research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure that is significantly better than the low-risk national average (-0.158). This low-profile consistency points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By avoiding this trend, the institution fosters an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates perfect synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This shared very low-risk profile shows that the institution, like its national peers, avoids excessive dependence on its own journals for dissemination. This practice is crucial for mitigating potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is positioned for global visibility rather than being channeled through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution shows evidence of differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.143 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.628. While both operate in a medium-risk context, the institution's ability to moderate this trend suggests a stronger control over practices like 'salami slicing.' This indicates a culture that values the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity that results from fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.
