| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
6.437 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.031 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.030 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.757 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.486 | 0.387 |
The Toulouse School of Economics demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.180 indicating a generally healthy and well-governed research environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its near-total absence of signals related to academic endogamy, questionable publication practices, or artificial productivity inflation, as seen in indicators like Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is exceptionally high and represents the main vulnerability requiring strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this solid research culture supports leading national positions in key thematic areas, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 35th in France), Psychology (73rd), and Business, Management and Accounting (86th). While the institutional mission was not specified, any commitment to academic excellence and societal impact is threatened when integrity risks emerge. The outlier behavior in affiliations could suggest a focus on metric optimization over genuine collaborative impact, potentially undermining a mission of authentic leadership. It is recommended that the institution leverage its considerable strengths in research integrity to conduct a focused review of its affiliation policies, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully align with its academic prestige and core values.
The institution presents a Z-score of 6.437, a value that significantly exceeds the national average of 0.648. This result indicates that the institution not only participates in but dramatically amplifies a national vulnerability regarding affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to inflate institutional credit. The severe discrepancy suggests an urgent need to review internal policies to ensure that affiliations reflect substantive, meaningful contributions rather than a systematic effort to maximize institutional ranking through questionable co-authorship claims.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.189, although both fall within a low-risk range. This minor divergence points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants proactive monitoring. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that begins to creep above the national baseline, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms should be reviewed to ensure they are not developing systemic weaknesses that could compromise the institution's integrity culture in the long term.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.031, which is significantly below the already low national average of -0.200. This result reflects a healthy and consistent integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low value confirms it is effectively avoiding the creation of scientific "echo chambers." This indicates that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny and recognition from the global community, rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution shows a near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of -0.545 that is even lower than the strong national average of -0.450. This operational silence on a key risk indicator signals excellent due diligence and a robust process for selecting dissemination channels. This performance demonstrates that the institution is effectively protecting itself from severe reputational risks by ensuring its scientific production is not channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding any association with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.030, the institution displays a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience against a moderate trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.859). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in its environment. The data suggests a strong culture of accountability where author lists are not being inflated, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the dilutive effects of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.757, indicating a healthy, minimal gap where its internally-led research maintains a strong impact. This contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.512, which suggests a greater tendency toward dependency on external collaborations. This institutional resilience demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity rather than being an exogenous prestige borrowed from partners. This result confirms that the institution's excellence metrics are a reflection of its own intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -1.413, an extremely low value that reinforces the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.654). This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a culture of scientific integrity. It suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, where the institutional environment does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation simply to inflate publication metrics. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume protects the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, demonstrating perfect synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This alignment shows a shared commitment to avoiding the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from over-reliance on in-house journals. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, the institution guarantees its work achieves global visibility and standard competitive validation, bypassing internal 'fast tracks' that could inflate credentials without proper scrutiny.
With a Z-score of -0.486, the institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, effectively isolating itself from the moderate-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.387). This preventive stance indicates a strong institutional culture that discourages the practice of fragmenting 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.
