| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.283 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.361 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.452 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.437 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.373 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.224 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.244 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.133 | 0.387 |
The Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne demonstrates a profile of notable thematic strengths juxtaposed with specific, significant integrity risks. With an overall risk score of 0.224, the institution shows areas of exemplary control, particularly in avoiding predatory publishing channels, institutional endogamy, and hyperprolific authorship. These strengths are foundational. However, they are overshadowed by a critical alert in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and moderate risks in multiple affiliations and retracted publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution excels nationally, with top-tier rankings in key areas such as Energy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. This strong performance aligns with its mission to support the economy through applied research and innovation. Yet, the identified risk of research fragmentation directly threatens this mission; prioritizing publication volume over substantive contributions undermines the "highly qualified" and "competitive" ethos the institution aims to embody. To safeguard its reputation and fully realize its mission, it is recommended that the institution undertake a focused review of its publication and authorship policies, ensuring that its impressive research output is matched by the highest standards of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.283 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.648, indicating a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests the center is more exposed to the factors driving multiple affiliations than its national peers. While often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Given the institution's mission to foster industry collaboration, this high rate warrants a qualitative review to ensure that affiliations reflect genuine, substantive partnerships rather than practices aimed at metric optimization.
With a Z-score of 0.361, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.189, which is in a low-risk zone. This suggests the center is more sensitive to risk factors leading to retractions than other institutions in the country. Retractions are complex; some signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors. However, a rate notably above the national standard suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous oversight may require immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.452, which is below the national average of -0.200. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By maintaining a rate below its peers, the institution demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This low score reinforces the credibility of its impact, suggesting it is driven by external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.437 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.450, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony demonstrates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues. This practice is crucial as it avoids the severe reputational damage and wasted resources associated with channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, often termed 'predatory' journals. This result confirms a strong institutional commitment to high-quality dissemination.
With a Z-score of -0.373, the institution shows a low rate of hyper-authored publications, contrasting with the moderate-risk national average of 0.859. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk observed across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation. The institution's low score suggests it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency.
The institution's Z-score of 0.224 is notably lower than the national average of 0.512, indicating a more balanced impact profile. This reflects differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common nationally. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners, not its own structural capacity. The institution's moderate score suggests a healthier balance, where its scientific prestige is more closely tied to its own intellectual leadership, indicating a sustainable and robust internal research capability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.244 is exceptionally low, situating it well below the national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area, which aligns with the national standard of control. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The institution's very low score is a positive indicator of a research environment that likely prioritizes quality and meaningful participation over sheer publication volume, fostering a culture of scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is almost identical to the national average of -0.246. This reflects an integrity synchrony, indicating a total alignment with a national environment where academic endogamy is not a concern. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest issues by bypassing independent external peer review. The institution's negligible rate in this indicator confirms its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is vetted through standard, impartial channels.
The institution's Z-score of 3.133 is a critical red flag, drastically exceeding the national average of 0.387. This severe value indicates that the institution is not merely following a national trend but is significantly amplifying a vulnerability present in the system. This score strongly suggests a systemic practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice distorts the scientific record, overburdens the review system, and prioritizes volume over the significant new knowledge required to fulfill the institution's mission of supporting industry and innovation. This indicator requires an urgent and thorough review of publication ethics and authorship guidelines.
