| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.619 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.792 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.140 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.244 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.090 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.778 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.233 | 0.628 |
The Ecole Nationale des Sciences Appliquees de Agadir presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.026 that indicates a performance closely aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and output in its own journals, reflecting robust internal controls and a culture of accountability. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, a tendency towards redundant output (salami slicing), and a moderate rate of institutional self-citation. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, could undermine the institution's long-term reputational goals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution has established itself as a key national contributor in specialized fields such as Chemistry, Mathematics, and Energy. To fully realize its potential and align with a mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as practices like data fragmentation and insular citation patterns contradict the principles of transparent and globally validated knowledge creation. By focusing on enhancing researcher literacy regarding publication ethics and reinforcing policies that prioritize impactful research over volume, the institution can solidify its leadership in its core thematic areas and enhance its international standing.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.619, positioning it favorably against the national average of 0.043. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's lower rate indicates it is less prone to strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at inflating institutional credit, demonstrating a more controlled and transparent approach to collaborative attribution compared to the national trend.
With a Z-score of -0.437, compared to the national average of -0.174, the institution shows a very low incidence of retracted publications. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of significant risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard. The data suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are effective and robust, reflecting a healthy culture of integrity and methodological rigor that successfully prevents the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.792 is considerably lower than the national average of 2.028, though both fall within a medium-risk context. This points to a differentiated management strategy where the institution successfully moderates risks that appear more common across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's more controlled rate suggests it is less susceptible to creating 'echo chambers' or engaging in endogamous impact inflation. This indicates a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking validation from the broader external scientific community compared to its national peers.
The institution registers a Z-score of 1.140, slightly above the national average of 1.078. This indicates a high exposure to risk, suggesting the center is more prone to publishing in questionable outlets than its environment's average. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests a significant portion of its scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, creating severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.244 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.325, indicating an exceptionally low rate of hyper-authorship. This low-profile consistency, which is even stronger than the national standard, suggests that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable. The absence of risk signals in this area confirms that author lists are not being inflated, and credit is being assigned in a manner that reflects genuine contribution and individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.090, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which has a score of -0.751. This greater sensitivity to risk factors indicates a potential dependency on external partners for impact. A positive gap, where global impact is not fully matched by the impact of research led by the institution, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural, prompting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.778, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.158. This indicates that within a low-risk national context, the institution manages its processes with even greater rigor. This strong performance suggests effective oversight that discourages imbalances between quantity and quality, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record more strictly than the national standard.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security indicates a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the institution ensures its research bypasses potential conflicts of interest and is instead validated through independent, external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility in line with best national practices.
The institution's Z-score of 1.233 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.628, signaling high exposure to this risk. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' Such a pattern, where studies are divided into minimal publishable units, artificially inflates productivity metrics at the cost of scientific substance. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, indicating a need to reinforce policies that value significant new knowledge over publication volume.
