| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.408 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.158 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.449 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.347 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.341 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.151 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.615 | 0.387 |
Institut National des Sciences Appliquees de Lyon demonstrates a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.024 that aligns closely with the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in its minimal rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and output in its own journals. These areas of excellence suggest strong internal quality controls and a commitment to responsible research conduct. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities in three key areas: a significant rate of multiple affiliations, and medium-risk levels for institutional self-citation and redundant output. These specific risks could challenge the institution's mission to ensure the "valorization of results" and effective "dissemination of scientific and technical information" by creating perceptions of inflated credit, academic insularity, and a focus on quantity over substantive impact. These challenges are particularly relevant given the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas such as Dentistry, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Medicine, and Mathematics, as identified in the SCImago Institutions Rankings. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission of excellence, it is recommended that INSA Lyon leverage its evident strengths in governance to develop targeted strategies that address these specific high-risk indicators, thereby reinforcing the integrity and global standing of its research enterprise.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.408, a value that indicates a significant risk level and starkly contrasts with the national average of 0.648. This finding suggests that the institution is not only participating in a national trend but is amplifying it to a critical degree. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of partnerships, the institution's exceptionally high rate signals a potential systemic issue. This raises concerns about strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the institution's brand and misrepresent its collaborative contributions. This vulnerability requires an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than metric-driven inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.189. This low-profile consistency indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. The absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for research integrity, confirming that robust processes are in place to prevent the types of unintentional errors or malpractice that can lead to retractions. This result reflects a strong institutional culture of methodological rigor and responsible science.
The institution's Z-score of 0.158 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.200, which is in the low-risk range. This discrepancy indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate suggests a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.449 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.450, placing both in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security regarding publication venues. It indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This shared commitment to high-quality publication practices protects the institution's reputation and ensures research resources are well-spent.
The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.347, a figure that points to strong institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that while there may be a broader trend towards author list inflation in the country, the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating this systemic risk. This prudent management of authorship practices ensures that author lists remain transparent and that individual accountability is not diluted, distinguishing legitimate large-scale collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.341, the institution effectively counters the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk Z-score of 0.512. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, indicating that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. Unlike the national context, where there may be a greater reliance on collaborations for impact, the institution shows that its excellence metrics are the result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This signals a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem where the institution drives its own high-impact work.
The institution's Z-score of -1.151 is in the very low-risk category, showing an even more conservative profile than the low-risk national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an environment where the balance between quantity and quality is well-maintained. The absence of risk signals in this area, in alignment with the national standard, suggests that the institution is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and prioritizing meaningful intellectual contributions over sheer volume.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, with both falling into the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony indicates a shared national commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.615 is in the medium-risk category and indicates high exposure, as it is notably higher than the national average of 0.387, which is also at a medium-risk level. This suggests that while the practice of fragmenting studies may be a shared national issue, the institution is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. This elevated rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications warns of a tendency to divide coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
