| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.432 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.737 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.403 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.948 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.853 | 0.387 |
The Institut Catholique de Lille presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.196 that indicates general alignment with expected operational standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in both institutional and discontinued journals, showcasing robust internal governance and a commitment to external validation. However, areas of medium risk, particularly a high dependency on external collaborations for impact and an elevated rate of redundant publications, require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's key academic areas include Arts and Humanities, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Psychology, and Social Sciences. The identified vulnerabilities, such as data fragmentation and reliance on external leadership, could challenge the institutional mission to foster "high level professionalism" and serve the "common good" through its own intellectual capital. A proactive approach to mitigating these specific risks will be crucial to ensure that its research practices fully embody its core values of critical thinking and humanistic service.
The institution's Z-score of 0.432 is notably lower than the national average of 0.648. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is otherwise more common in the French academic system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's more controlled rate indicates effective policies that likely reduce the potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a more conservative and transparent attribution of its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution's rate of retractions is low, though it signals a slight incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.189. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate is generally positive. However, this minor deviation suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may warrant a preventative review. While not an immediate alarm, this signal provides an opportunity to reinforce supervision and methodological rigor to ensure that this indicator does not escalate and continues to reflect a culture of scientific integrity.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.737, significantly below the already low-risk national average of -0.200. This low-profile consistency indicates a robust connection to the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. It is a strong indicator that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external recognition and scrutiny, rather than being inflated by endogamous or isolated internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.545 that is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.450. This outstanding result signals an absence of risk and demonstrates exceptional due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. It indicates that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards, thereby protecting its reputation and ensuring that its scientific resources are invested in credible and impactful outlets.
The institution's Z-score of 0.403 is considerably lower than the French average of 0.859, pointing to effective and differentiated management of authorship practices. In a national context where hyper-authorship is a medium-level risk, the institution's more moderate score suggests a healthier approach. This serves as a positive signal that the institution is successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.948 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.512. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is notable, its prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and not driven by its own structural capacity. This reliance on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership poses a sustainability risk. It invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research excellence, ensuring that its reputation is a direct result of its own core scientific leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authorship, far below the national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency is a clear strength, aligning with a national environment that is already low-risk. This result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting the institution effectively discourages practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, such as coercive or unmerited authorship, and fosters an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer volume.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence regarding this risk, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even more favorable than the country's very low average of -0.246. This result highlights a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.853 that is more than double the national average of 0.387. This indicates a greater propensity for practices like 'salami slicing' compared to its national peers. Such a high value alerts to the potential fragmentation of coherent studies into minimal publishable units, a practice aimed at artificially inflating productivity metrics. This not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, suggesting an urgent need to promote research that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
