| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.665 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.964 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.389 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.340 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.908 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.349 | 0.387 |
The Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sante Publique (EHESP) presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.009 that indicates general alignment with expected scientific conduct. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas foundational to research quality, including a very low rate of institutional self-citation, minimal output in discontinued or institutional journals, and a near-absence of hyperprolific authors. These positive indicators suggest a culture that prioritizes external validation and quality over volume. However, this profile is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities in collaborative practices, specifically a significant risk in hyper-authored output and a high rate of multiple affiliations. These flags, coupled with a medium risk of impact dependency, suggest that while EHESP's collaborative strategy is active, it may be generating unintended integrity risks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's strongest thematic areas include Veterinary, Environmental Science, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. To fully honor its mission of training public sector leaders and advancing public health, it is crucial to address these collaborative risks. Practices that could be perceived as inflating credit or diluting accountability are inconsistent with the values of excellence and public trust inherent in its mission. A strategic review of authorship and affiliation policies is recommended to ensure that its collaborative success translates into sustainable, transparent, and leader-driven scientific impact.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.665, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.648. This indicates that the center is more exposed to this particular risk dynamic than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's elevated rate suggests a need for closer examination. This high exposure could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which, if unmonitored, could undermine the transparency and perceived value of its collaborative network. It is advisable to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive contributions rather than just nominal association.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.189. This favorable position suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective and potentially more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can stem from honest errors, and a low rate signifies responsible supervision and a robust integrity culture. This result indicates that systemic failures in methodological rigor or recurring malpractice are not a significant concern, reflecting positively on the institution's commitment to producing reliable science.
The institution's Z-score of -0.964 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.200. This demonstrates a consistent and commendable low-risk profile. The absence of signals for this indicator aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard, indicating that the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into external scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of -0.389 is minimal, though slightly above the national baseline of -0.450. This score represents mere residual noise in an otherwise inert risk environment. While the institution's performance is excellent and shows strong due diligence in selecting publication venues, this minor signal indicates that it is among the first to show any activity, however small, in this area. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, but here it simply serves as a reminder for continuous vigilance to ensure all researchers are equipped with the information literacy needed to avoid predatory or low-quality channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.340, a significant risk level that accentuates the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.859). This indicates that the institution is amplifying a problematic national trend. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high score outside these fields can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This critical finding suggests an urgent need to analyze authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential proliferation of 'honorary' or political authorships, which compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of 0.908, the institution shows a higher exposure to impact dependency than the national average of 0.512. This gap suggests that while the institution's overall scientific prestige may be high, a significant portion of that prestige is reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, as it raises questions about whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships led by others. This finding invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting research where the institution's own scholars are the driving force.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is markedly negative, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors and aligning consistently with a low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.654). This is a strong positive signal. While high productivity can sometimes indicate leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.246, reflecting a state of integrity synchrony. This demonstrates a shared commitment, at both institutional and national levels, to avoiding the risks associated with academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice prevents potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its research output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.349, which is nearly identical to the national average of 0.387. This alignment suggests that the institution's behavior reflects a systemic pattern, likely influenced by shared practices or evaluation pressures at a national level. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' The institution is not an outlier but rather a participant in a broader, national dynamic, which points to the need for a systemic, rather than purely institutional, conversation about research assessment criteria.
