ESCP Business School

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

ESCP Business School presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.290 indicating performance that is slightly better than the baseline. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas promoting external validation and research quality, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results point to a culture of scientific openness and rigorous individual accountability. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring include a medium risk level for the Rate of Retracted Output, the Gap in scientific impact, and the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which suggest potential vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control and a dependency on external partners for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's key thematic strengths lie in Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences. While the institutional mission was not available for direct analysis, these identified risk areas could challenge the core values of "excellence" and "sustainable impact" typical of a leading business school. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, ESCP Business School can leverage its solid integrity foundation to further enhance its reputation as a global leader in responsible and high-impact research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.571, while the national average is 0.648. This indicates that while the school operates within a national context where multiple affiliations are common, it demonstrates a more moderated approach than its peers. This suggests a differentiated management of a systemic practice. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the medium risk level signals a need to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution's ability to maintain a rate below the national average points to potentially effective internal governance, though the area warrants continued observation.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.014, which contrasts with the national average of -0.189. This moderate deviation from a low-risk national environment suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate notably higher than the country's baseline alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This may indicate that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are facing systemic challenges, pointing to a need for an immediate qualitative verification by management to understand the underlying causes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation with a Z-score of -1.916, far below the national average of -0.200. This performance signifies a strong culture of external validation and scientific openness. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is exemplary, even within a national context of good practice. This result confirms that the institution successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers,' ensuring its academic influence is built upon broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of -0.545, compared to the national average of -0.450, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals related to publishing in discontinued journals. This performance, which is even stronger than the already very low-risk national standard, indicates exceptionally robust due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. It demonstrates a clear commitment to channeling scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, effectively protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.691, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. In a context where hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute individual accountability, the institution's low score is a positive signal. It indicates a successful promotion of transparency and responsible authorship practices, clearly distinguishing necessary collaboration from honorary or political attributions.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.235, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.512. Although both the institution and the country are in a medium-risk category, this high exposure indicates that the institution is more prone to impact dependency than its environment. A wide positive gap suggests that while overall scientific prestige is high, it may be overly reliant on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in exogenous partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing markedly better than the national average of -0.654. This absence of risk signals points to a healthy and balanced academic environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this low indicator suggests that the institutional culture effectively prioritizes quality over quantity, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and thus safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, reflecting a perfect synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment demonstrates a strong and shared commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels and thus enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.110, while the national context presents a medium-level risk at 0.387. This difference highlights the institution's resilience and effective control mechanisms against the practice of 'salami slicing.' A high rate of redundant output can indicate the fragmentation of studies into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its research culture values the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-driven gains.