| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.205 | 1.185 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.014 | -0.211 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.131 | -0.264 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.465 | -0.486 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.919 | 0.904 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.401 | -0.140 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.051 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.266 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.269 |
The Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales et du Developpement demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable overall risk score of -0.419. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive contributions. However, areas requiring strategic attention are the medium-risk levels observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, more critically, the Rate of Retracted Output. These results are contextualized by the Institute's strong academic standing, particularly its top-10 national rankings in Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully honor its mission of providing "independent and rigorous analyses," it is crucial to address the vulnerabilities highlighted by the retraction rate, as this directly impacts the perceived rigor of its research. By focusing on strengthening pre-publication quality controls, the Institute can ensure its operational practices are in complete alignment with its esteemed mission, solidifying its role as a leader in global studies.
The Institute's Z-score for this indicator is 0.205, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is notably lower than the national average of 1.185. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The Institute's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers indicates a more controlled approach, effectively managing its collaborative footprint and mitigating the reputational risks associated with "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.014, the Institute presents a medium risk level that marks a moderate deviation from Switzerland's low-risk national benchmark (-0.211). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national average, as indicated by the risk level, serves as an alert. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The Institute shows an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.131, positioning it far below the low-risk national average of -0.264. This near-absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy and consistent reliance on external academic validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the Institute's very low rate confirms it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' This result is a clear indicator that the institution's academic influence is earned through genuine recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The Institute's Z-score of -0.465 is in almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.486, with both reflecting a very low-risk environment. This total alignment demonstrates a shared, high standard of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels across the Swiss academic landscape. By consistently avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively protects itself from severe reputational risks and ensures its research resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-impact publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.919, the Institute maintains a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk trend seen nationally (0.904). This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates can indicate authorship inflation. The Institute's low score is a positive signal that it fosters a culture of transparency and individual accountability, successfully filtering out practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The Institute's Z-score of -0.401 indicates a low-risk profile that is more robust than the national average of -0.140. This reflects a prudent approach, where the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. The Institute's contained gap suggests its scientific prestige is sustainable and structural, resulting from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership within its collaborations.
The Institute records a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a near-total absence of this risk factor and performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average (-0.051). This low-profile consistency underscores a healthy academic environment focused on substance. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The Institute's excellent result in this area indicates a strong institutional balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the Institute's activity is in complete integrity synchrony with the national context (-0.266), where publishing in institutional journals is a very low-risk practice. This alignment shows that the institution does not rely on its own journals for dissemination, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest. This practice ensures that its scientific production bypasses academic endogamy and is validated through independent, external peer review, which is essential for maintaining credibility and achieving global visibility.
The Institute demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -1.186, far below the low-risk national average of -0.269. This absence of risk signals is a strong indicator of a research culture that values impactful science over metric inflation. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to boost publication counts. The Institute's very low score confirms its commitment to publishing coherent, significant new knowledge, thereby respecting the scientific evidence base and the integrity of the peer-review system.
