| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.676 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.788 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.321 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.880 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.044 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.147 | -0.003 |
Université TELUQ demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.389, indicating performance that is notably more secure than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for generating autonomous, high-impact research and maintaining exceptional control over authorship and citation practices, as evidenced by very low risk levels in the Gap in Leadership Impact, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Institutional Self-Citation. These positive indicators are consistent with the university's mission to foster high-level research and educational innovation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable thematic strengths in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (Top 43 in Canada) and Psychology (Top 57 in Canada). However, a significant alert in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) presents a direct challenge to the mission's emphasis on developing "new knowledge," suggesting a potential misalignment where publication volume may be prioritized over substantive contribution. To fully align its practices with its stated values of quality and innovation, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear strengths in research governance to address this specific vulnerability and reinforce its commitment to impactful, high-integrity scholarship.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.676, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.073. This comparison suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaborations. The institution's practices appear more rigorous than the national standard, effectively minimizing any ambiguity in institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a clear and transparent system for declaring affiliations, steering clear of strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional contributions are accurately represented.
With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution demonstrates a slightly more favorable position compared to the national average of -0.152. This indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms are functioning with greater rigor than the national norm. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate like this one is a positive signal of responsible supervision and effective pre-publication review. The data suggests that the institution has a solid framework for maintaining methodological integrity, successfully preventing the types of systemic errors or malpractice that could otherwise lead to a higher rate of retractions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.788 is exceptionally low, placing it in a much stronger position than the national average of -0.387. This result reflects a healthy and externally-focused research culture. The complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to an already low-risk national environment, demonstrates that the university's work is validated by the broader international scientific community. This performance effectively dismisses concerns about scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' confirming that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.321, while the national average is -0.445. This slight divergence indicates that the university, while still maintaining a low-risk profile, shows minor signals of activity in this area that are not as prevalent across the rest of the country. A presence in discontinued journals, even if sporadic, can be an alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. This suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure they consistently choose high-quality, reputable journals, thereby avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical standards and protecting the institution's reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.880, the institution exhibits a significantly lower risk than the national average of 0.135. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks related to authorship that are more common at the national level. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in "Big Science," the institution's very low rate outside these contexts indicates strong governance against author list inflation. This ensures that individual accountability and transparency are maintained, effectively distinguishing legitimate collaboration from honorary or political authorship practices.
The institution shows an exceptionally strong Z-score of -1.044, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.306, which indicates a medium-risk trend. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency observed in its environment. A negative gap signifies that the research led directly by the institution is highly impactful, proving that its scientific prestige is built on structural, internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. This result is a powerful indicator of genuine intellectual leadership and research sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.151, highlighting an exemplary standard of research practice. This near-total absence of risk signals, well below the already low national benchmark, points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, ensuring that its scholarly record is built on a foundation of integrity and substantive work.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.227. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment across the country to prioritizing external, independent peer review. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive processes, enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing the credibility of its research output.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.147, a medium-risk level that marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.003. This discrepancy is a significant alert, suggesting the university is more sensitive to risk factors leading to data fragmentation than its national peers. A high value in this indicator warns of the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling an urgent need to review publication policies to ensure they incentivize significant new knowledge over mere volume.
