| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.214 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.155 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.713 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.490 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.129 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.433 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.108 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.751 | 0.628 |
The Faculte de Sciences et Techniques de Mohammedia demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.145 that positions it slightly above the global average. The institution's primary strengths are concentrated in areas of authorship and publication strategy, showing very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. This indicates a culture that prioritizes accountability and quality over sheer volume. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Retracted Output, alongside medium-risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation and publication in Discontinued Journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the Faculty's research excellence is particularly notable in key thematic areas, including Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranking 7th in Morocco), Physics and Astronomy (12th), and Chemistry (14th). The identified integrity risks, though moderate, present a potential conflict with the institutional mission to provide "quality scientific and technical training" and contribute to "scientific...progress." A higher-than-average retraction rate or reliance on discontinued journals could undermine the perceived quality and reliability of its research. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, the Faculty can further solidify its strong integrity foundation, ensuring its operational practices fully align with its mission of excellence and its leadership role within the national scientific landscape.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.214, contrasting with the national average of 0.043. This result suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as the Faculty's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks related to affiliation practices that are more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low rate indicates that it is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent crediting for its research output.
With a Z-score of 0.155, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at -0.174. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than in other Moroccan institutions, pointing to a potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management.
The Faculty's Z-score for this indicator is 0.713, a figure that, while in the medium-risk range, is substantially lower than the national average of 2.028. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is far more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the Faculty’s relative control helps it avoid the more severe risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This prudent management prevents endogamous impact inflation, ensuring the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.490 is notably better than the national average of 1.078, although both fall within the medium-risk category. This demonstrates effective, differentiated management that moderates a common national vulnerability. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While the Faculty is not immune to this issue, its performance suggests it is more discerning than its peers, reducing its exposure to severe reputational risks and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.129, a very low-risk value that is significantly healthier than the national low-risk average of -0.325. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals in this area is in line with, and even exceeds, the national standard. This score indicates that the Faculty's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby avoiding the dilution of individual responsibility.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.433 compared to the national average of -0.751, the institution shows a strong and consistent profile. This absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, indicating a healthy balance between collaborative impact and the impact generated by research under its own leadership. This low gap demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity, reflecting a sustainable model where excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.108 signifies a very low risk, performing better than the national average of -0.158. This low-profile consistency indicates that the Faculty's environment does not encourage authorship practices that push the limits of human capacity. The absence of this risk signal aligns with national trends but shows a more rigorous stance, effectively preventing potential imbalances between quantity and quality and avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony in this area. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows that the Faculty, like its national peers, does not rely on its own journals for publication. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes for visibility on a global stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The Faculty has a Z-score of -0.751, indicating a very low risk of redundant publication, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.628, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data suggests a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By avoiding the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units, the Faculty prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
