| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.263 | 0.076 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.220 | 0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.596 | -0.627 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.014 | -0.036 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.242 | -0.397 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.711 | 2.163 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -1.186 |
Universite Felix Houphouet-Boigny presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.044 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over internal publication practices, showing a complete absence of risk signals in hyperprolific authorship, output in institutional journals, and redundant publications. However, this robust internal foundation is contrasted by medium-risk indicators related to its external collaborations and post-publication quality control, specifically in the rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, and a notable gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. These vulnerabilities are more pronounced than the national average, suggesting a high exposure to systemic risks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this integrity profile underpins a position of clear national leadership, ranking first in Côte d’Ivoire across numerous fields including Arts and Humanities, Chemistry, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Social Sciences. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those concerning retractions and dependency on external leadership—could challenge any institutional ambition centered on achieving sustainable, self-driven excellence and social responsibility. To secure its prominent academic standing, the university is advised to leverage its strong internal governance to develop targeted policies that address these external-facing vulnerabilities, ensuring its operational integrity fully supports its demonstrated thematic excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.263, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.076. This result indicates that while a medium level of risk is a shared pattern within the country's research system, the university is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. This heightened exposure suggests that the institution's rate of multiple affiliations warrants closer examination. While often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's tendency towards this practice is more pronounced than the national standard, creating a potential vulnerability that could dilute its academic brand and complicate the attribution of scientific credit.
With a Z-score of 0.220, the institution's rate of retractions is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.058. This value places the university in a position of high exposure to a risk that, while present nationally, is amplified within its context. Retractions are complex events, but a rate notably above the norm suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more systemically than elsewhere in the country. This elevated score alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor might be present and requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.596, a value that is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.627. This alignment demonstrates a level of risk that is normal and expected for its context and size. The data indicates that the institution's citation practices are in step with national standards, avoiding concerning signals of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, and the university operates well within this healthy parameter, suggesting its work is validated through a balanced mix of internal and external scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.014 is statistically normal and consistent with the national average of -0.036. This indicates that the risk level associated with publishing in discontinued journals is as expected for its context, with no significant deviation from the national pattern. The university's performance shows appropriate due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational risks associated with channeling scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This alignment reflects a standard and responsible approach to scholarly communication.
With a Z-score of -0.242, the institution shows a slightly higher tendency for hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of -0.397. Although the overall risk level remains low for both, this subtle divergence points to an incipient vulnerability. It suggests that the university should review its authorship practices to ensure they remain robust before any potential escalation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some "Big Science" contexts, this signal serves as a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby safeguarding transparency and individual accountability.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.711 in this indicator, a figure that is considerably higher than the national average of 2.163. This result suggests that while dependency on external collaboration for impact is a systemic national pattern, the university is more exposed to this dynamic. The wide positive gap signals a significant sustainability risk, as it indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is more dependent and exogenous than that of its national peers. This invites critical reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a condition that could undermine its long-term research autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is identical to the national average, demonstrating a perfect alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This score reflects a total operational silence, with a complete absence of risk signals related to extreme individual publication volumes. This is a significant strength, indicating a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics. The data suggests a well-regulated balance between quantity and quality, free from the risks of coercive authorship or other practices that compromise meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates total alignment with a context of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony signifies a complete absence of risk related to academic endogamy. The university does not show any dependence on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice reinforces its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, positioning its scientific output within the international academic conversation rather than a closed internal loop.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is perfectly aligned with the national average, indicating complete synchrony with a secure national environment. This result shows an absolute absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's publication patterns suggest a strong focus on producing coherent studies that offer significant new knowledge, rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into minimal publishable units. This commitment to substantive scholarship upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reflects a responsible use of academic resources.
