| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.096 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.079 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.020 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.393 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.542 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.392 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.121 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.332 | -0.003 |
The Université du Québec en Québec presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.089, indicating a solid operational foundation without systemic vulnerabilities. Key strengths are evident in its responsible management of publication channels and authorship practices, particularly a very low rate of output in discontinued or institutional journals, and effective mitigation of hyper-authorship and impact dependency risks compared to national trends. These areas of excellence support a robust research environment. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators, including institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and redundant output, moderately deviates from the lower-risk national standard, suggesting a need for targeted review. The institution's strong academic positioning, with top-10 national rankings in critical fields such as Business, Management and Accounting, Psychology, Engineering, and Environmental Science, underscores its capacity for high-impact research. To fully align with its mission of fostering Quebec's scientific and regional development, it is crucial to address these moderate risks, as they could subtly undermine the long-term credibility and external validation essential for fulfilling its public service mandate. A proactive focus on these areas will reinforce the institution's commitment to excellence and ensure its contributions are both significant and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.096 contrasts with the national average of -0.073. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this elevated rate signals a potential strategic use to inflate institutional credit. The data suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency and fairness of institutional representation in research outputs.
With a Z-score of 0.079, the institution's rate of retractions is higher than the national average of -0.152. This difference suggests a moderate deviation from the national standard, pointing to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. A rate significantly higher than its peers can indicate that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently. This finding warrants a qualitative review by management to understand the root causes and reinforce methodological rigor to prevent recurring malpractice and protect the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.020, which is notably higher than the national average of -0.387. This score represents a moderate deviation, suggesting the center is more prone to this risk than the rest of the country. A disproportionately high rate of self-citation can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.393 is exceptionally low, closely mirroring the already low national average of -0.445. This result signifies an integrity synchrony, with the university's practices fully aligned with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The near-total absence of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards demonstrates excellent due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels, effectively protecting the institution from the reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -0.542, the institution demonstrates strong control in this area, performing significantly better than the national average of 0.135. This reflects a clear institutional resilience, where internal mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks present elsewhere in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the university avoids the potential for author list inflation and ensures that authorship reflects meaningful contribution, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.392 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.306, highlighting a significant area of strength. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to mitigate a risk more common at the national level. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners. This indicates robust intellectual leadership and a sustainable model for generating high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.121 is higher than the national average of -0.151, indicating a moderate deviation from the national norm. This suggests the university is more exposed to the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes. Such a pattern can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It serves as an alert to review for practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.268, an extremely low value that is even better than the national average of -0.227. This indicates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk. The near-complete absence of reliance on in-house journals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. This practice effectively mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of 0.332, the institution shows a significantly higher incidence of this risk compared to the national average of -0.003. This moderate deviation warrants attention, as it suggests a greater sensitivity to practices that inflate publication counts. A high value alerts to the possibility of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
