| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.038 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.160 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.986 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.162 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.928 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.219 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.251 | 0.628 |
Université Sultan Moulay Slimane presents a scientific integrity profile characterized by notable strengths in operational governance but marked by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.194, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly in maintaining low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and dependency on external leadership for impact. These areas of excellence are reflected in its strong national positioning in key disciplines, including top-10 rankings in Morocco for Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Mathematics; and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant and medium risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output, respectively. These specific challenges could undermine the university's commitment to scientific excellence and social responsibility, as they suggest internal validation may be prioritized over global scrutiny and productivity metrics over substantive knowledge contribution. To secure its reputation and build on its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the institution leverage its robust control mechanisms to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research practices are fully aligned with global standards of transparency and integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.038, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.043. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s controlled rate indicates it is less exposed to strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a more transparent approach to academic partnerships than the national trend.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the country's already low-risk average of -0.174. This finding indicates a strong low-profile consistency, where the absence of significant risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. Such a low rate suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective, fostering an integrity culture that successfully prevents the types of methodological failure or malpractice that often lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 3.160 for this indicator is at a significant risk level, substantially higher than the country's medium-risk score of 2.028. This discrepancy suggests a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning degree of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber.' It warns of a critical risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, requiring an urgent review of its citation practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.986 is at a medium risk level, comparable to the national average of 1.078. However, the university's slightly lower score points to a degree of differentiated management that helps moderate a risk that is common across the country. A medium-risk score still constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -1.162, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, placing it well below the country's low-risk average of -0.325. This demonstrates excellent low-profile consistency and suggests that authorship practices are well-governed. The absence of signals related to author list inflation indicates that transparency and individual accountability are effectively maintained, ensuring that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contribution and avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.928 is in the very low-risk category, indicating a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This performance is stronger than the country's low-risk average of -0.751, reflecting a high degree of scientific autonomy. This result is a powerful indicator of structural capacity, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by its own intellectual leadership. This points to a mature and sustainable research ecosystem capable of producing high-impact work independently.
With a Z-score of -0.219, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for hyperprolific authorship, managing its processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard (-0.158). This prudent profile suggests a healthy and sustainable research environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, ensuring that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both at a very low risk level. This demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. The minimal reliance on in-house journals is a positive sign, indicating that the university's research output consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest, enhances global visibility, and ensures that its work is validated competitively by the international scientific community.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 2.251, which, while categorized as medium risk, is significantly higher than the national average of 0.628. This disparity reveals a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the university is more prone to these alert signals than its national peers. This high value warns of the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
