| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.584 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.243 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.537 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.795 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.096 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.538 | 0.387 |
Institut Agro Montpellier demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.321, which indicates a performance superior to the baseline standard. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for intellectual leadership, with a minimal gap between its total impact and the impact of research led by its own authors, and its effective prevention of questionable publication practices, such as redundant output and the use of discontinued journals. These areas of excellence stand in positive contrast to national trends. While indicators related to collaboration patterns, such as the rates of multiple affiliations and hyper-authored output, present a medium risk, the institution manages these dynamics more effectively than the national average. This solid integrity framework provides a credible foundation for its academic mission. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's leadership is particularly notable in key thematic areas, including Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 8th in France), Veterinary (17th), and Environmental Science (43rd). This thematic specialization aligns perfectly with its mission to "train managers for agriculture, alimentation, and sustainable management of resources and territories." The institution's commitment to responsible research practices directly supports the values of excellence and sustainability inherent in its mission, ensuring that the future managers it trains are grounded in a culture of scientific rigor and transparency. It is recommended that the institution leverage this strong integrity profile as a strategic asset to consolidate its leadership in its core disciplinary fields.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.584, while the national average is 0.648. Although the presence of multiple affiliations is a shared characteristic at the national level, the institution demonstrates a more contained approach to this practice. This suggests a differentiated management that moderates a risk that appears more common in the country. While multiple affiliations often reflect legitimate collaborations, this indicator warrants attention to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and substantial, thereby preventing strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" that could dilute the institution's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.334, significantly lower than the national score of -0.189, the institution exhibits a prudent and rigorous profile regarding its published output. This performance indicates that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more robust than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and this very low rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are effective in preventing the types of unintentional errors or methodological flaws that might later require correction, reinforcing a culture of responsible and high-quality scientific conduct.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.243, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.200. This result reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of internal citation is as expected for an institution of its context and size. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and indicates the consolidation of specific research lines. The current level does not suggest the presence of 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, but it remains a valuable metric for ensuring that the institution's work continues to be validated by the broader external scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.537, demonstrating an almost complete absence of publications in discontinued journals and outperforming the already low national average of -0.450. This operational silence in a high-risk area is a clear indicator of excellence in governance. It reflects a strong institutional commitment to due diligence in selecting high-quality, reputable dissemination channels. This practice effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory publishing and ensures that its scientific contributions are directed toward legitimate and enduring platforms.
With a Z-score of 0.795, compared to a national average of 0.859, the institution shows a moderate signal for hyper-authorship but manages this trend with more control than its national peers. This suggests a differentiated approach to large-scale collaborations. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain "Big Science" fields, this indicator serves as a reminder to continually distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and practices of 'honorary' or political authorship. The institution's ability to moderate this risk helps ensure that authorship attributions remain transparent and that individual accountability is not diluted.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.096, a result that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.512. This demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience, as the institution avoids a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. Unlike the national trend, which suggests a greater dependency on external partners for impact, this result confirms that the institution's excellence metrics are a direct reflection of its robust internal research capacity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national score of -0.654. This low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already positive national standard, is a significant strength. It indicates a healthy research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This result suggests that the institution is effectively avoiding potential imbalances, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.246. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared national commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on its own journals for dissemination, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for objective validation and global visibility. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output, confirming that its work competes successfully in standard international channels.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.538, indicating a very low incidence of redundant publications, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.387, which signals a medium risk. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This strong performance suggests a culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics through practices like 'salami slicing.' By avoiding the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
