| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.659 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.446 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.430 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.605 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.233 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.553 | 0.387 |
Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.145 that reflects a general alignment with national standards in France, complemented by distinct areas of strength and specific, targeted vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional rigor in maintaining research quality, evidenced by very low-risk signals in output published in discontinued journals, the rate of hyperprolific authors, and institutional self-citation. However, areas of concern emerge around authorship and publication strategies, specifically a high exposure to multiple affiliations and redundant output (salami slicing), which exceed national averages and suggest a potential overemphasis on quantitative metrics. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Psychology (ranked 28th in France), Arts and Humanities (31st), Business, Management and Accounting (48th), and Social Sciences (56th). While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge universal academic values of excellence and integrity. A culture that incentivizes publication volume over substance may inadvertently undermine the long-term impact and trustworthiness of its research. Overall, Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 has a robust foundation of scientific integrity. By proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities in authorship and publication practices, the institution can further solidify its reputational standing and ensure its thematic strengths translate into sustainable, high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of 1.659 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.648. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university shows a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests a higher institutional exposure to factors that encourage multiple affiliations. While often legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This elevated value warrants a review to ensure that affiliation practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than metric-oriented strategies.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns perfectly with the low-risk national profile (Z-score: -0.189). This indicates that its quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms are functioning as expected within its context. Retractions are complex events, and this low rate suggests that any corrections are likely the result of responsible scientific practice rather than an indicator of systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture prior to publication.
The institution demonstrates a prudent and rigorous profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.446 that is notably lower than the French average of -0.200. This indicates a stronger-than-average integration with the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms it successfully avoids the risks of creating 'echo chambers' or scientific isolation. This practice ensures that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.430 shows a complete and secure alignment with the national environment (Z-score: -0.450), where this practice is virtually non-existent. This integrity synchrony reflects a robust and well-informed approach to selecting publication venues. This performance indicates that the institution exercises strong due diligence in its dissemination strategy, effectively protecting its research and reputation from the severe risks associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, such as 'predatory' journals.
The institution displays significant institutional resilience, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.605 in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that internal governance and authorship policies are effectively filtering and mitigating a broader systemic trend present in the country. By controlling this indicator, the university successfully avoids signals of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. This distinguishes its collaborative work from 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of scientific contribution.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of its research impact, with a Z-score of 0.233, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.512. While a gap is a common feature nationally, the university moderates this risk more effectively, indicating a healthier balance between its overall impact and the impact generated by research under its direct intellectual leadership. This smaller gap suggests the institution is building more sustainable, real internal capacity and is less dependent on exogenous prestige from collaborations, a positive sign for its long-term scientific autonomy and structural strength.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.654). This low-profile consistency is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. This result suggests a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, successfully avoiding the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can lead to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's practices are in perfect synchrony with the secure national environment, as shown by its Z-score of -0.268, which is almost identical to the country's average of -0.246. This indicates a clear commitment to publishing in external, independent venues. By avoiding reliance on its own journals, the university effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation through external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.553 that is notably above the national average of 0.387. This suggests that its publication patterns are more prone to fragmentation than those of its national peers. This elevated value serves as an alert for the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a tendency risks distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, consolidated new knowledge.
