| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.934 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.327 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.139 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.868 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.215 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.819 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.364 | 0.628 |
Universite Cadi Ayyad presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.096 indicating a foundation of sound practices alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining very low rates of output in its own journals and low rates of hyperprolific authorship, retracted publications, and redundant output, suggesting robust internal controls in these domains. However, medium-risk signals in areas such as multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact (Ni_difference) highlight vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions, particularly in Arts and Humanities (ranked 2nd in Morocco), Business, Management and Accounting (5th), Computer Science (6th), and Engineering (6th). These areas of academic excellence are central to its mission of disseminating culture, advancing scientific research, and contributing to national development. The identified risks, if unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of this research, creating a potential disconnect between its stated mission of excellence and its operational practices. By leveraging its clear strengths to mitigate these vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its role as a leading national and regional institution, ensuring its contributions are both impactful and built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.934 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.043. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a markedly higher propensity for this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this high exposure suggests a need for review. The elevated rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," warranting a closer examination to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.061, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly above the national average of -0.174, though both remain in the low-risk category. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating a minimal but detectable presence of retractions that warrants monitoring. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes resulting from the honest correction of errors. However, even a slight increase over the baseline can be an early signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges, highlighting a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture that should be addressed before it escalates.
The institution demonstrates effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 1.327 that is considerably lower than the national average of 2.028. This indicates that the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a lower rate, the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This prudent approach mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence is more reliant on genuine recognition from the global community rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.139 is substantially lower than the national average of 1.078, highlighting a differentiated and more cautious approach to a risk prevalent in its environment. This performance suggests that the university exercises stronger due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert for reputational risk. By effectively avoiding these outlets more than its national peers, the institution protects its resources and scholarly reputation from association with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
A moderate deviation is observed, with the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.868 contrasting with the low-risk national average of -0.325. This indicates that the university has a greater sensitivity to factors leading to hyper-authorship than its peers. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can be a signal of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This discrepancy suggests a need to analyze authorship patterns to distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaborations and potential "honorary" or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.215 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.751. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk, revealing a wider gap between the impact of its total output and the impact of research led by its own authors. This positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally self-sufficient. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.819, which is well below the national average of -0.158. This demonstrates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby fostering a culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared national standard of not relying on internal publication channels. In-house journals can create conflicts of interest where an institution is both judge and party. The university's very low rate in this indicator confirms that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its research competes for global visibility and validation.
The institution displays notable resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.364 that effectively mitigates the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (0.628). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are successful in preventing this practice. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing," where studies are divided into minimal units to inflate productivity. By maintaining a low rate, the institution promotes the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge and discourages practices that distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system.
