| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.930 | 2.525 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.089 | 0.367 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.109 | 0.360 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.019 | 0.499 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.058 | -1.066 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.297 | -0.061 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.750 | -0.892 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.155 | 0.289 |
The Université de Sousse presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a combination of exemplary practices and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.367, the institution demonstrates robust control in areas such as the use of institutional journals and authorship norms, reflecting a solid foundation of research governance. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and medium-level alerts in several other indicators, including output in discontinued journals and self-citation. These challenges require strategic attention as they could undermine the institution's reputation and the perceived value of its research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 4th in Tunisia), Arts and Humanities (6th), and Business, Management and Accounting (7th). As the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, we refer to the universal academic values of excellence and integrity. The detected risks, especially those suggesting a focus on metric inflation over substantive contribution, are misaligned with these core values. A proactive strategy that leverages its strengths in governance to mitigate its identified vulnerabilities will be crucial for ensuring long-term scientific credibility and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 2.930 places it at a significant risk level, notably higher than the country's medium-risk score of 2.525. This indicates that the university not only reflects but actively amplifies a national vulnerability regarding affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential systemic issue. The data suggests an urgent need to review internal policies, as this pattern may be perceived as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than a natural byproduct of researcher mobility, potentially compromising the transparency and integrity of its research attributions.
With a Z-score of 0.089, the institution demonstrates effective management in an area where the country shows a medium-level risk (Z-score: 0.367). This suggests the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common nationally. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national average points towards robust quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This differentiated performance indicates that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are proving effective in preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that may be more prevalent in the wider national system.
The institution's Z-score of 0.109 is well below the national average of 0.360, positioning it as a positive outlier within a medium-risk environment. This demonstrates differentiated management that effectively mitigates the risk of scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is normal, the university's controlled rate suggests it is successfully avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This prudent approach minimizes the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is more likely driven by global community recognition than by internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.019 that surpasses the national average of 0.499, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This heightened propensity for publishing in questionable venues constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution's Z-score of -1.058 is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -1.066, both indicating a low-risk level. This alignment suggests that the university's authorship patterns are as expected for its context and size. The data does not point to any unusual inflation of author lists outside of disciplines where it is conventional. This consistency confirms that the institution's practices are in line with legitimate collaborative norms, effectively avoiding the risks associated with 'honorary' or political authorship that can dilute individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.297, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.061). This low-risk score indicates a healthy and sustainable model of scientific impact. It suggests that the university's prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This balance is crucial, as it shows that the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capabilities rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not hold a leading role.
The institution's Z-score of -0.750, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the country's average of -0.892. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Although not yet a significant issue, it suggests the presence of publication patterns that could, if unchecked, lead to imbalances between quantity and quality. It is advisable to review these signals to preemptively address potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a state of integrity synchrony, as it is identical to the national score and falls within the very low-risk category. This perfect alignment demonstrates an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The complete absence of risk signals confirms that the university avoids potential conflicts of interest by not relying on its own journals for publication. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby safeguarding its global visibility and credibility against any suspicion of academic endogamy or the use of internal 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution shows effective, differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.155 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.289. Within a country context of medium risk, the university's performance indicates a stronger institutional culture against data fragmentation. This lower rate suggests that its researchers are less prone to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
