Universite de Rennes 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universite de Rennes 1 demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.235, which indicates a performance superior to the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous selection of publication venues and its effective control over internal validation practices, with exceptionally low risk in output in discontinued and institutional journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk tendency towards hyper-authorship and, most notably, a significant gap between its overall impact and the impact of research led internally, suggesting a potential dependency on external collaborations. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these operational dynamics support a strong international position in key thematic areas such as Computer Science (ranked 8th in France), Engineering (14th), and Veterinary sciences (14th). While the institutional mission was not specified, any pursuit of academic excellence and sustainable leadership is challenged by an over-reliance on external partners for impact. To fully align its practices with a mission of sovereign excellence, the university is encouraged to foster internal research leadership, ensuring that its recognized prestige is built upon a solid foundation of endogenous capacity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.312, the institution presents a low rate of multiple affiliations, which contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.648. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of affiliation inflation that are more prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s prudent approach successfully avoids the potential for strategic “affiliation shopping” to inflate institutional credit, showcasing a governance framework that is more robust than that of its national peers.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution maintains a low rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.343), performing better than the national standard (Z-score: -0.189). This prudent profile indicates that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national average. A low incidence of retractions is a positive signal, suggesting that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a significant concern and that the institutional culture of integrity is effectively preventing recurring malpractice or critical methodological flaws.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates a prudent approach to self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.264 that is lower than the already low national average of -0.200. This indicates that its research processes are managed with a rigor that exceeds the national standard, successfully avoiding the risks of scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's low value confirms that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal "echo chambers," ensuring robust external scrutiny of its work.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is exceptionally low (Z-score: -0.433), showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security (Z-score: -0.450). This integrity synchrony indicates a strong institutional commitment to due diligence in selecting high-quality dissemination channels. This practice effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality journals, demonstrating excellent information literacy and responsible use of research resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution presents a medium rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: 0.506), but its score is notably lower than the national average (Z-score: 0.859). This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. This controlled rate suggests the institution is actively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and potentially problematic practices like "honorary" authorship, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its publications.

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

The institution exhibits a medium-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, with a Z-score of 0.986 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.512. This indicates a high exposure to dependency risks, suggesting the institution is more prone to these alert signals than its peers. A wide positive gap warns that its scientific prestige may be largely exogenous and reliant on external partners. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term research sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is low (Z-score: -0.594), yet slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.654). This represents an incipient vulnerability, showing minor signals that warrant review before they potentially escalate. While high productivity can be legitimate, even a small increase in extreme publication volumes can point to emerging imbalances between quantity and quality. It is advisable to monitor this trend to prevent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to publishing in its own journals, performing even better than the minimal national average (Z-score: -0.246). This total operational silence indicates that the institution is not reliant on in-house journals, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing its global visibility and upholding the highest standards of competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output is in the medium-risk range (Z-score: 0.207), but its score is considerably lower than the national average (Z-score: 0.387). This points to differentiated management, suggesting the institution is more effective at moderating the practice of data fragmentation, or "salami slicing," than its national peers. By better controlling the division of studies into minimal publishable units, the institution demonstrates a stronger commitment to prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.