| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.385 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.791 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.747 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.075 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.662 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.830 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.155 | 0.628 |
The Faculte des Sciences d’El Jadida demonstrates a balanced integrity profile, characterized by significant operational strengths in authorship and publication quality control, contrasted with critical vulnerabilities in other areas. With an overall score of 0.491, the institution shows a commendable capacity to manage certain systemic risks more effectively than the national average, particularly in preventing redundant publications and hyperprolific authorship. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic leadership, which is evident in its prominent national standing in key disciplines according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, most notably ranking 1st in Morocco for Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, this position of excellence is threatened by high-risk indicators, especially a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals. While a specific mission statement was not localized for this report, any institutional commitment to research excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally undermined by practices that compromise scientific credibility. To secure its reputation and the long-term impact of its research, the institution is advised to leverage its proven internal governance strengths to urgently address its selection of publication venues and enhance its pre-publication quality assurance processes.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.385, while the national average is 0.043. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution's score indicates a higher exposure to the associated risks than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a greater propensity for these practices to be used strategically to inflate institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not merely a form of “affiliation shopping,” which could distort the institution's perceived collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.061, a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.174, which sits in a low-risk band. This divergence suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than the rest of the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that is notably higher than the national standard serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological issues that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution records a Z-score of 1.791, which is below the national average of 2.028. This result indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution demonstrates better control over this practice, reducing the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and more effectively mitigating the potential for endogamous impact inflation, thereby ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.747, a critical value that significantly amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability observed at the national level (Z-score of 1.078). This finding constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The high Z-score indicates that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and systemic need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
With a Z-score of -1.075, the institution displays a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score of -0.325). This demonstrates a commendable ability to manage authorship practices effectively. The institution's lower-than-average rate indicates a healthy distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the potential for author list inflation. This result suggests that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are well-maintained, reducing the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices diluting the value of contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.662 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.751, signaling an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk level is low for both, this subtle difference suggests the institution may have a slightly greater dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. This pattern, if it grows, could pose a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is more exogenous than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on fostering internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.830 is significantly lower than the national Z-score of -0.158, indicating a prudent profile in managing author productivity. This result shows that the institution's processes are more rigorous than the national standard in this regard. The low incidence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This reflects a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony in a very low-risk environment. This total alignment demonstrates a shared commitment to maximum scientific security in publication practices. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for maintaining global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution demonstrates notable resilience by maintaining a low-risk profile in an area where the country shows a medium-risk vulnerability (Z-score of 0.628). This indicates that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. The low rate of bibliographic overlap suggests a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' prioritizing the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. This practice strengthens the scientific record and reflects a commitment to meaningful knowledge contribution.
