| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.488 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.104 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.442 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.691 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.416 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.240 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.975 | 0.387 |
Université Gustave Eiffel demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.115. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels and authorship practices, with very low risk signals in output in discontinued or institutional journals and in the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. These areas of excellence are complemented by effective mitigation of systemic national risks related to hyper-authorship and impact dependency. However, two areas require strategic attention: a higher-than-average rate of multiple affiliations and a notable tendency towards redundant publications ('salami slicing'). These vulnerabilities, while moderate, could potentially undermine the institution's mission to "conduct quality research for the benefit of society." This mission is strongly supported by its thematic leadership, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top national performers in Social Sciences, Computer Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science—fields central to its focus on "the cities of tomorrow." To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to address the identified vulnerabilities, ensuring that all research outputs fully embody the principles of quality, transparency, and societal value.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 1.488, placing it in the medium-risk category and notably above the national average of 0.648. This indicates a high exposure to practices or incentives that encourage multiple affiliations, making the center more prone to showing these alert signals than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that these practices reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution's rate of retracted output is low but slightly more pronounced than the national benchmark of -0.189. This slight difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it could escalate. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate that edges above the national average, even while remaining low, may serve as an early alert to a potential weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This signal suggests that a qualitative verification of review processes could be beneficial to reinforce the institution's integrity culture and prevent any systemic issues.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.104 for self-citation, a low-risk value that is nevertheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.200. This profile points to an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this minor elevation could be an early warning of a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, which could eventually lead to an endogamous inflation of its perceived academic impact.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary record in its choice of publication venues, with a very low Z-score of -0.442 for output in discontinued journals, which is in perfect alignment with the secure national average of -0.450. This result reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where institutional practices are fully harmonized with a national environment of maximum scientific security. It confirms that researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels, effectively mitigating the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
With a low Z-score of -0.691, the institution effectively counters the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk level of 0.859. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal governance and control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications, the institution upholds a high standard of individual accountability and transparency, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.416, indicating a low and healthy gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This performance contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.512, highlighting significant institutional resilience. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and built upon its own internal capacity, not overly dependent on external partners. It is a strong indicator that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine intellectual leadership, avoiding the sustainability risks associated with prestige that is primarily exogenous.
The institution exhibits a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, with an exceptional Z-score of -1.240, significantly better than the already low national average of -0.654. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. This strong result indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or imbalances between quantity and quality.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and closely mirrors the national average of -0.246. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution operates in full alignment with a secure national environment. By not relying on internal channels, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, a practice that is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.975, a medium-risk signal that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.387. This suggests a high exposure to research practices that may lead to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' While citing previous work is a necessary part of science, this elevated score serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic warrants a review to ensure that research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over volume, thus protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
