| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.988 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.220 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.303 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.468 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.140 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.626 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.442 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.577 | -0.003 |
The Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique demonstrates a robust and specialized research profile, characterized by notable strengths in scientific autonomy and due diligence, alongside specific, high-priority areas for integrity review. With an overall score of 0.264, the institution excels in avoiding predatory publishing channels and building impact through its own intellectual leadership, outperforming national trends. Key areas of concern are a significant alert in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and moderate risks in multiple affiliations, retractions, and redundant publications, which deviate from the low-risk Canadian context. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's scientific excellence is particularly concentrated in areas such as Mathematics (ranked 10th in Canada), Earth and Planetary Sciences (15th), and Chemistry (17th). However, the identified integrity risks, especially those related to authorship and publication practices, could undermine the credibility foundational to its mission of fostering Québec's development and ensuring effective knowledge transfer. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the institution implement targeted reviews and reinforce governance mechanisms, particularly concerning authorship criteria and productivity incentives, thereby securing its long-term scientific reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.988, while the national average for Canada is -0.073. This moderate deviation indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher-than-average rate suggests a need to verify that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence from the national standard warrants a review to ensure that affiliation policies are transparent and consistently applied.
With a Z-score of 0.220, the institution's rate of retractions is moderately higher than Canada's national average of -0.152. This difference suggests a greater institutional susceptibility to the factors leading to retractions compared to its peers. A rate significantly higher than the national average, as observed here, serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating a possible need for qualitative verification by management to address any recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.303, which is slightly higher than the national average of -0.387. Although both values fall within a low-risk range, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this slight upward trend relative to the national context signals a need to proactively ensure that the institution's work receives sufficient external scrutiny, thereby mitigating any risk of developing 'echo chambers' where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.468, which is even lower than the already very low national average of -0.445. This result signifies a total operational silence in this risk area. It indicates that the institution exercises exemplary due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. By completely avoiding publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution not only protects itself from severe reputational risks but also sets a standard for information literacy and responsible resource allocation that surpasses the high benchmark already established at the national level.
With a Z-score of -0.140, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in an area where the national average shows a moderate risk (0.135). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent in the country. This performance suggests that the institution has robust governance in place to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby successfully preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.626, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the moderate-risk national average of 0.306. This positive gap highlights significant institutional resilience and scientific autonomy. The data suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and driven by its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This ability to generate high-impact research under its own direction is a clear indicator of sustainability and a strong research culture, effectively filtering out the national trend of reliance on exogenous impact.
A critical finding for the institution is its Z-score of 2.442 in this indicator, which represents a severe discrepancy from Canada's low-risk national average of -0.151. This atypical level of risk activity is an anomaly within a healthy national environment and requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal systemic issues such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This result points to an urgent need to audit internal processes and review incentive structures to address dynamics that may prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.227, with both figures in the very low-risk category. This indicates total operational silence, reflecting an exemplary commitment to external validation. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and reinforces its dedication to meeting standard competitive validation benchmarks, performing even better than the strong national norm.
The institution's Z-score of 0.577 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.003. This suggests the institution is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This divergence from the national trend warrants a review of publication guidelines and author incentives to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, a practice which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system.
