Universite de Bretagne Occidentale

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Université de Bretagne Occidentale (UBO) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.318 indicating performance superior to the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authorship, effectively insulating itself from national trends that pose moderate risks in these areas. This solid foundation of integrity aligns directly with its mission to elevate the scientific and cultural level of the nation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, UBO's research excellence is particularly pronounced in key thematic areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Engineering, and Computer Science. However, a notable area for strategic attention is the Rate of Redundant Output, which is higher than the national average. This practice, if unaddressed, could undermine the institution's commitment to impactful research by prioritizing volume over substance, thereby posing a risk to its core mission of contributing meaningfully to national growth and reducing inequalities through credible science. By leveraging its clear strengths and addressing this specific vulnerability, UBO is well-positioned to enhance its reputation for both scientific excellence and unwavering ethical conduct.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.001, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.648. This result indicates a case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the country's moderate score suggests a systemic tendency towards practices that may inflate institutional credit. UBO's very low score demonstrates strong internal governance and a clear policy on affiliations, effectively avoiding the national trend and ensuring that institutional credit is attributed with precision and transparency.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, which is lower than the national average of -0.189, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its management of post-publication corrections. This superior performance suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, a consistently low rate like UBO's, especially when compared to its peers, points to a robust integrity culture where potential methodological flaws or malpractice are effectively identified and addressed prior to publication, safeguarding the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.253 is below the national average of -0.200, indicating a prudent and healthy citation profile. This demonstrates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, successfully avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers'. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but UBO's lower rate suggests a greater reliance on external validation from the global scientific community. This reinforces the conclusion that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or insular citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.288, compared to the country's very low score of -0.450, signals a slight divergence from the national norm. This indicates that the university, while still maintaining a low-risk profile, shows signals of activity in this area that are not as prevalent across the rest of the country. A higher proportion of publications in journals that cease to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to prevent the channeling of scientific production through predatory or low-quality media, which poses a reputational risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.024 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.859. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', the country's higher score points to a broader trend of potential author list inflation. UBO's ability to maintain a lower rate indicates more effective control over authorship practices, ensuring that credit is assigned transparently and individual accountability is not diluted by honorary or political inclusions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of 0.276, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.512, the institution demonstrates differentiated management of its research impact strategy. This lower gap indicates that the university moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A wide gap suggests that scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. UBO's more balanced score signifies a healthier, more sustainable model where the institution's excellence metrics are more closely tied to research where it exercises intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of a dependent or exogenous reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.848 is notably lower than the national average of -0.654, reflecting a prudent profile that prioritizes research quality. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, discouraging extreme individual publication volumes. Such volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. UBO's lower rate suggests a healthier academic environment, with a reduced risk of coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in a very low-risk area shows a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest, UBO ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the credibility of its research and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.211 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.387, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals for redundant publication than its environment. This practice, often called 'salami slicing,' involves dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a high value is a critical alert, as it not only distorts the scientific evidence available to the community but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This area requires immediate review and intervention.