| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
5.847 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.784 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.059 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.143 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.913 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.855 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.486 | 0.387 |
SKEMA Business School presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by exceptional performance in key areas of research ethics, yet punctuated by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.306, the institution demonstrates a strong foundation, showing very low risk in institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant output, indicating a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive contributions. This solid base supports its academic strengths, particularly in its core fields of Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 27th in France), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (50th), and Psychology (61st), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is critically challenged by a significant-risk score in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium-risk gap in impact leadership. These indicators suggest that while the school's international collaborations are extensive, they may be amplifying national risk trends and creating a dependency on external partners that could undermine its mission to foster sustainable, internally-driven innovation. To fully align with its stated values of "ethics and responsibility," it is recommended that the institution review its affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic credit inflation, and develop initiatives to strengthen the impact of research led by its own faculty, thereby securing its long-term scientific autonomy and leadership.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.847, a value that represents a significant risk and starkly contrasts with the national average of 0.648. This finding suggests that the school not only participates in the national trend of multiple affiliations but actively amplifies it. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic over-reliance on this practice, possibly to inflate institutional credit. This dynamic of "risk accentuation" warrants an internal review to distinguish between organic, productive collaboration and systematic "affiliation shopping," which could compromise the transparency and ethical standing of the institution's research output.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution's rate of retractions is low and broadly in line with the national average of -0.189. However, the slightly higher value points to an incipient vulnerability. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors, but a rate that edges above the norm, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms warrant a precautionary review. This minor signal should be monitored to ensure it does not escalate, as a systemic increase could indicate a weakness in the institution's integrity culture or methodological rigor.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.784, significantly below the already low-risk national average of -0.200. This result indicates a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a clear indicator of robust integration into the global research community, where academic influence is built on external scrutiny and broad recognition rather than on endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.059 indicates a low but present risk, which represents a slight divergence from the national context, where this signal is virtually absent (Z-score of -0.450). This suggests that a small portion of the school's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards. While sporadic presence in such journals can occur, this deviation from a very low-risk national baseline is a critical alert. It highlights a need to enhance information literacy and due diligence processes for selecting dissemination channels to avoid reputational damage and the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -1.143, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.859). This preventive isolation is a strong positive signal. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their absence here suggests that the institution successfully avoids author list inflation and the dilution of individual accountability. This indicates well-governed authorship practices that prioritize transparency and meaningful contribution over the inclusion of 'honorary' authors.
The institution's Z-score of 0.913 is in the medium-risk range and notably higher than the national average of 0.512. This indicates a high exposure to a systemic issue, suggesting the center is more prone to this alert than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that the school's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. It invites a strategic reflection on how to cultivate and showcase genuine internal innovation.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.855, which is lower than the national average of -0.654. This indicates that the school manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard in this area. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution effectively mitigates the risks of prioritizing quantity over quality, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with the national environment of maximum scientific security (country Z-score of -0.246). The negligible rate of publication in its own journals is a strong positive indicator. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution would act as both judge and party. It confirms a commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.486 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed across the country (Z-score of 0.387). This excellent result indicates that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not a feature of the institution's research culture. By avoiding 'salami slicing,' the school upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume-based metrics.
