| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.478 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.826 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.342 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.554 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.062 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.472 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.851 | 0.628 |
Universite Ibn Tofail presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.347 reflecting a combination of notable strengths and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable control in foundational areas such as a very low rate of output in its own journals and a prudent management of retractions, suggesting robust internal processes. However, these strengths are overshadowed by a critical risk in institutional self-citation, which significantly exceeds national levels and points to a potential "echo chamber" effect. This is compounded by a cluster of medium-risk indicators—including output in discontinued journals, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications—where the university consistently shows higher exposure than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key disciplines such as Chemistry (ranked 2nd in Morocco), Earth and Planetary Sciences (3rd), and Computer Science and Physics and Astronomy (both ranked 5th). While these thematic strengths are clear, the identified integrity risks, particularly the high self-citation rate, could undermine the credibility of this leadership. Such practices challenge the core principles of academic excellence and social responsibility by potentially prioritizing internal validation over global scientific dialogue. To secure its reputation and the long-term impact of its research, it is recommended that the university leverage its process-related strengths to conduct a strategic review of its publication and citation culture, ensuring its strong disciplinary performance is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.478, contrasting with the national average of 0.043. This result suggests a high degree of institutional resilience. While the national context shows moderate signals of risk in this area, the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate these systemic trends. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, but disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university’s low score indicates that its affiliations are well-managed and align with standard collaborative practices, avoiding the risk of "affiliation shopping" observed elsewhere in the system.
With a Z-score of -0.362, which is lower than the national average of -0.174, the institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to quality control. Both the university and the country show low risk in this area, but the institution’s even lower score points to superior management of its pre-publication review processes. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate is a positive indicator. This value suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, preventing systemic failures and upholding a strong integrity culture that minimizes the need for post-publication corrections due to malpractice or methodological flaws.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.826, a critical value that significantly surpasses the country's medium-risk average of 2.028. This finding indicates a serious risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While some self-citation reflects ongoing research, such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber." This practice creates a significant risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.
The university's Z-score of 1.342 is higher than the national average of 1.078, placing both at a medium-risk level. This pattern suggests a high exposure, making the institution more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of 0.554, the institution shows a medium-risk signal, which represents a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk score of -0.325. This divergence indicates that the university has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, a high score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a closer look to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for "honorary" authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.062, a medium-risk value that moderately deviates from the national low-risk average of -0.751. This gap suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of impact dependency. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.472 reflects a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.158. This difference suggests the institution is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than the rest of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony in a very low-risk environment. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security is a significant strength. In-house journals can present conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The university's very low score in this area indicates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, effectively avoiding the risks of academic endogamy.
With a Z-score of 0.851, the institution's medium-risk level is notably higher than the country's average of 0.628. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the university is more prone to this practice than its national counterparts. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing." This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that distorts the scientific evidence base and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
