| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.202 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.688 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.469 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.755 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.300 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.209 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.709 | 0.387 |
AgroParisTech demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.081. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in several key areas, maintaining very low-risk levels for redundant output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, often outperforming national averages. This foundation of integrity strongly supports its leadership position, evidenced by top-tier national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Veterinary (9th in France), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (11th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (13th), and Physics and Astronomy (15th). However, a significant alert is noted in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is substantially higher than the national trend. This specific vulnerability could challenge the institution's mission to be a "leading" establishment in knowledge production, as it may create a perception that its prestige is inflated rather than organically generated. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the institution investigates the drivers of this outlier indicator while continuing to leverage its considerable strengths in research ethics and quality control.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.202, a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with the national medium-risk average of 0.648. This discrepancy suggests that the institution not only participates in but actively amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal systemic strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," a practice that could undermine the perceived authenticity of the institution's research contributions and leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.189. This indicates a prudent and effective approach to quality control. The data suggests that the institution's pre-publication review mechanisms and post-publication supervision are functioning well, contributing to a responsible and reliable scientific record that aligns with best practices and surpasses the national benchmark for research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.688 is well within the low-risk category and is notably lower than the national average of -0.200. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. The low rate of self-citation demonstrates a healthy integration into the global scientific community, suggesting that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being confined to internal 'echo chambers' or at risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.469 is almost identical to the national average of -0.450, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution is in total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security regarding publication venues. This performance demonstrates excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively mitigating the reputational and resource risks associated with channeling research through predatory or low-quality journals.
The institution's Z-score of 0.755 places it at a medium-risk level, slightly below the national average of 0.859. This suggests a degree of differentiated management that successfully moderates a risk that is common across the country. While operating within a systemic pattern of large collaborations, the institution shows slightly more control. This serves as a signal to continue ensuring transparency in authorship, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship that can dilute individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.300, the institution shows a medium-risk gap that is considerably smaller than the national average of 0.512. This indicates a more effective management of its collaborative strategy, moderating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. The smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This healthier balance mitigates the sustainability risk of relying on exogenous impact for its reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.209, a very low-risk level that is significantly better than the country's low-risk score of -0.654. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the national standard, points to a strong institutional culture. It suggests a focus on quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's performance is in lockstep with the national average of -0.246, both reflecting a very low-risk environment. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to global visibility and independent validation. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution bypasses potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes standard competitive peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.709 indicates a very low risk of redundant publication, a stark and positive contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.387. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the problematic risk dynamics observed in its environment. This exceptional performance highlights a culture that values substantive contributions over artificially inflated productivity, successfully avoiding the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing studies into minimal units—which distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.
