| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.241 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.493 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.202 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.501 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.225 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.852 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.270 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.759 | 0.387 |
Institut Agro Rennes-Angers demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.357, which indicates a performance well above the baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications, showcasing rigorous quality control and a commitment to impactful research. Furthermore, the institution exhibits strong intellectual leadership, with minimal dependency on external collaborators for its scientific impact. Areas requiring moderate attention are the rates of multiple affiliations and hyper-authored output, which, while reflecting national trends, are slightly more pronounced at the institution. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's scientific excellence is concentrated in key areas, with top national rankings in Veterinary (16th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (36th), Medicine (46th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (48th). This strong performance aligns directly with its mission of "training-research-innovation," as a foundation of high integrity is essential for credible and sustainable innovation. The observed risk in multiple affiliations could be a natural consequence of its mission's emphasis on "dynamic alliances," but it requires careful management to ensure these collaborations enhance, rather than dilute, institutional credit. Overall, the institution is in an excellent position to leverage its solid integrity framework to further amplify its research impact and leadership in its core disciplines.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.241, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.648. Although this indicator falls within the medium-risk category for both the institution and the country, the institution shows a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests a high exposure to the potential downsides of multiple affiliations. While often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, as encouraged by the institution's mission of "dynamic alliances," a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This metric warrants monitoring to ensure that collaborative practices remain transparent and substantively justified.
With a Z-score of -0.493, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of retracted publications, a figure that is even more favorable than the low national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective, aligning with and exceeding the national standard for research integrity. This exceptional performance suggests that potential errors are corrected prior to publication and that there are no systemic vulnerabilities in the institutional culture that might lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.202, a value that is virtually identical to the national average of -0.200. This alignment demonstrates statistical normality, indicating that the institution's citation practices are in perfect sync with the expected patterns for its context and size. This level of self-citation is natural and reflects the healthy continuity of established research lines. Crucially, it does not suggest the presence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' confirming that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.501, indicating a near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals and outperforming the already very low national average of -0.450. This state of "total operational silence" on this indicator is a clear sign of exceptional due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. It confirms that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality publishing practices, thereby protecting institutional resources and reputation from severe risks and demonstrating a high level of information literacy.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is 0.225, which, while in the medium-risk category, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.859. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. This indicates a more controlled approach to co-authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship. The institution appears to be more effective than its national peers at maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.852, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.512. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While the national trend suggests a degree of reliance on external partners for impact, the institution's negative gap indicates that the research it leads is highly impactful on its own. This signals strong scientific maturity and sustainability, confirming that its prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not on a strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.270, the institution shows an exceptionally low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the low national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency and near-total absence of risk signals point to a healthy research environment where quality is prioritized over sheer quantity. It strongly suggests that authorship is linked to meaningful intellectual contribution and that practices such as coercive authorship or extreme data fragmentation are not a concern, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, both of which are very low. This demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony, showing a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The minimal reliance on in-house journals indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated competitively on a global stage, enhancing its visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.759 is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.387. This signifies a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution's internal culture actively resists a problematic trend seen elsewhere in the country. The near absence of this practice indicates that researchers are focused on publishing coherent and significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific evidence base and shows respect for the academic review system.
