| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.310 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.328 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.018 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.157 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.199 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.463 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.148 | 0.628 |
Universite Chouaib Doukkali presents a scientific integrity profile marked by a clear duality. With an overall score of 0.326, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas of authorship and impact governance, showing very low risk in hyper-authored output, the gap between internal and external impact, and publishing in its own journals. These positive signals are complemented by a prudent management of hyperprolific authors. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in several key areas, notably a high exposure to institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and multiple affiliations, where its metrics exceed national averages. Thematically, the university shows strong national leadership, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it in the top 10 in Morocco for Agricultural and Biological Sciences (3rd) and Business, Management and Accounting (9th). To fully align with its mission of disseminating knowledge and contributing to national development with universal values, it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. These risks, if unmanaged, could undermine the credibility of its research and contradict its commitment to excellence. A strategic focus on reinforcing publication and citation ethics will allow the institution to leverage its thematic strengths and build a more resilient and unimpeachable scientific reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.310, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.043. This result indicates a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice, suggesting that the university is more susceptible to these integrity alerts than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The elevated score at Universite Chouaib Doukkali warrants a review to ensure that affiliation practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than metric optimization, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputational integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.174. This indicates that the rate of retractions is within the expected range for its context and size, showing no systemic anomaly. Retractions are complex events, and a rate that is not unusually high suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning adequately, allowing for the responsible correction of the scientific record when necessary without pointing to recurring malpractice.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 2.328, placing it above the already high national average of 2.028. This suggests a high exposure to the risks of academic endogamy, showing a greater tendency toward this practice than the national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.018, significantly exceeding the national average of 1.078. This indicates a high exposure to the risks of publishing in low-quality or predatory journals, a vulnerability that appears more pronounced at the university than across the country. A high proportion of publications in such venues constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on questionable practices.
The institution demonstrates a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.157, well below the low national average of -0.325. This excellent result shows a consistent and responsible approach to authorship that aligns with national integrity standards. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution effectively avoids practices such as author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability. This reinforces a culture where academic credit is transparently and appropriately assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -1.199, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, performing better than the national average of -0.751. This result indicates a healthy and consistent balance between the impact of its overall output and the output where it holds intellectual leadership. The absence of a significant positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity. This reflects a sustainable model of research excellence, where internal capabilities are effectively driving its recognized impact on the global stage.
The institution displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.463, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.158. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively mitigating the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of dynamics like coercive authorship or data fragmentation that can arise from pressure to maximize publication counts. It points to an environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over sheer productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in a very low-risk context signifies that there are no signals of academic endogamy or conflicts of interest related to in-house publishing. The data suggests that the university's researchers are not overly dependent on institutional journals, instead engaging with the broader, independent peer-review system. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output, reflecting maximum scientific security in its dissemination strategies.
The university's Z-score of 0.148 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.628. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates risks of data fragmentation that appear to be more common at the national level. While citing previous work is necessary, a low score in this indicator suggests that the university effectively discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a commitment to publishing significant, coherent contributions to knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
