Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall integrity score of -0.498, the Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II demonstrates a robust and low-risk scientific profile, positioning it as a benchmark for research integrity within its national context. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over academic endogamy and publication ethics, reflected in very low risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, the institution shows a remarkable capacity for generating high-impact research under its own intellectual leadership, avoiding dependency on external collaborations. The only indicator requiring strategic monitoring is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this strong integrity profile underpins its leadership in key thematic areas, including Veterinary (ranked 2nd in Morocco), Earth and Planetary Sciences (4th), and Energy (10th). This performance is in direct alignment with its mission of "Training, Research, Development," as a culture of integrity is the foundation for excellence and social responsibility in all three pillars. The detected risk in multiple affiliations, while needing oversight, does not detract from this alignment but rather presents an opportunity to refine collaboration policies. The institution is advised to leverage its outstanding integrity profile as a strategic asset, while proactively developing clear guidelines for managing multiple affiliations to ensure transparency and consolidate its leadership position.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.484, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.043. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk factor. The center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment, suggesting that its collaboration or affiliation patterns differ significantly from the national norm. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a strategic review. It is crucial to ensure that these affiliations are substantive and transparently managed to avoid any perception of "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.174. This lower rate suggests that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a comparatively low rate is a strong indicator of effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This performance points to a culture of responsible supervision and methodological robustness, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected internally, preventing systemic failures that could lead to public retractions and protecting the integrity of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.039, a signal of very low risk that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 2.028, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids replicating risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate confirms it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This result is a testament to its commitment to external validation and global community recognition, effectively mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensuring its academic influence is built on broad, independent scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.245 places it in the low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 1.078. This discrepancy suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks present at the national level. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this institution's performance indicates that its researchers are effectively guided in selecting reputable dissemination channels. This acts as a firewall, protecting institutional resources and reputation from the risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.530, the institution shows a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.325. Although both are in a low-risk range, the institution's lower score indicates a more rigorous management of its authorship processes. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy approach to collaboration, where authorship is likely granted based on meaningful contribution, thereby avoiding practices like 'honorary' authorships and reinforcing transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.610 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency and outperforming the national low-risk average of -0.751. This absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard but also exceeds it. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, but the institution's score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structural and results from genuine internal capacity. This strong alignment between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads intellectually is a key indicator of sustainable, self-reliant excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is firmly in the very low-risk category, showing an even stronger position than the national low-risk average of -0.158. This signifies low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. Publishing excessively in in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and suggest academic endogamy. The institution's score confirms that its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of redundant output, a clear example of preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk score of 0.628. The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's excellent score shows a strong commitment to publishing coherent, significant new knowledge, thereby avoiding practices that distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system.