| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.100 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.390 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.406 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.142 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.853 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.468 | 0.387 |
With an overall integrity score of -0.254, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 demonstrates a robust and commendable research culture, characterized by a general alignment with best practices and significant strengths in operational integrity. The institution exhibits exceptional control in six key areas, including Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and Redundant Output, effectively isolating itself from national risk trends and establishing a foundation of scientific security. However, two indicators warrant strategic attention: the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap in Impact, both of which suggest a higher exposure to risk than the national average. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could impact the sustainability of the institution's scientific leadership. This strong integrity profile provides a solid base for its notable academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in its core thematic areas of Arts and Humanities; Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, such a strong commitment to integrity is fundamental to any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility. By proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its reputation and ensure its research impact is both authentic and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 1.100, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.648. This indicates a greater exposure to the risks associated with this practice compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate suggests a pattern that warrants closer examination. It is crucial to ensure these affiliations are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could dilute the university's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution's Rate of Retracted Output is slightly above the national figure of -0.189, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes reflecting responsible error correction. However, a rate that begins to diverge from the national baseline, even at a low level, suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges. This signal warrants a proactive review to reinforce methodological rigor and prevent any potential escalation that could point to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in managing its citation practices, with a Z-score for Institutional Self-Citation of -1.390, significantly lower than the national Z-score of -0.200. This result reflects a healthy integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By ensuring its work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, the university confirms that its academic influence is based on global community recognition, steering clear of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score for Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals is -0.406, showing a strong and synchronous alignment with the national average of -0.450. This reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in the selection of publication venues. Such a result indicates that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in choosing its dissemination channels, effectively protecting its research and reputation from the severe risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
A significant strength is observed in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, where the institution's Z-score of -1.142 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.859. This demonstrates a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics present elsewhere in the country. The institution's practices effectively prevent the potential for author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. This result indicates a culture that values genuine contribution over the 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of scientific collaboration.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.853 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its researcher-led output, a figure higher than the national average of 0.512. This suggests a heightened exposure to sustainability risks related to scientific prestige. A wide positive gap indicates that a significant portion of the institution's measured impact may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity to ensure that its reputation for excellence is a direct result of its own research capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413 for the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, the institution shows an exemplary profile, well below the national Z-score of -0.654. This low-profile consistency indicates robust institutional oversight that promotes a healthy balance between productivity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over purely quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score for Rate of Output in Institutional Journals is -0.268, an outstanding result that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.246. This total operational silence in a potential risk area signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By not relying on in-house journals, the university avoids any potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its global visibility.
In the Rate of Redundant Output, the institution shows a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.468 against a national average of 0.387. This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' indicates a culture that values the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby contributing meaningful new knowledge and respecting the integrity of the scientific review system.
