University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO) presents a balanced and generally robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.044 that indicates alignment with expected international standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and effective governance in key areas, maintaining very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, publication in discontinued or institutional journals, and a prudent management of retractions and self-citation that surpasses the national average. However, a few areas warrant strategic attention, specifically the medium-risk signals observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Gap in Impact between led and collaborative research, and the Rate of Redundant Output. These indicators suggest a need to reinforce policies that ensure institutional credit is accurately represented and that internal research capacity is cultivated to match collaborative impact. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with top-10 national rankings in strategic fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Mathematics. To fully realize its mission of fostering "innovation," "creativity," and "sustainable development," it is crucial to address these integrity vulnerabilities, as they could undermine the perceived quality and autonomy of its research. By proactively refining its oversight mechanisms in these specific areas, HES-SO can better safeguard its reputation and ensure its contributions to society are both impactful and unimpeachably sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of 2.164, which is significantly higher than the national average of 1.185, the institution shows a high exposure to the risks associated with multiple affiliations. This value indicates that the center is more prone to this practice than its national peers, which already operate in a medium-risk context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This moderate deviation warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantive contributions and transparent collaborative agreements.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.324 that is even lower than the already low national average of -0.211. This suggests that the center manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but such a low rate indicates that the mechanisms for supervision and methodological review prior to publication are functioning effectively. This positive signal reflects a healthy integrity culture, with no evidence of the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might suggest.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution’s Z-score of -0.591, well below the Swiss average of -0.264, points to a prudent and well-integrated publication strategy. This demonstrates that the center manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding the risks of scientific isolation or "echo chambers." A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community rather than being artificially oversized by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of -0.337 in an environment where the national average is -0.486, the risk associated with publishing in discontinued journals is minimal. However, the institution's score is slightly higher than the country's, representing a faint, residual signal in an otherwise inert context. While a high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, this very low level is not alarming. It does, however, serve as a subtle reminder of the continuous need for due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to completely avoid any reputational risk associated with low-quality or predatory publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays notable institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.142 in a national context that shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score of 0.904). This contrast suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the institution successfully preserves individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.033 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard (-0.140), indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is high, the impact of research where it exercises intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not hold a primary leadership role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -0.950, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a figure that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard in Switzerland (-0.051). This low-profile consistency is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests a well-maintained balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation. This commitment ensures that the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the sheer volume of publications.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.266, demonstrating a perfect integrity synchrony with its environment in an area of maximum scientific security. This alignment shows that the institution does not rely excessively on its own journals for dissemination, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. By channeling its research through external venues, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.220 represents a moderate deviation from the national trend, which shows a low risk in this area (Z-score of -0.269). This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to practices that can lead to redundant publications. This value serves as an alert to monitor for potential "salami slicing," the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer review system, making it crucial to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than on maximizing output volume.