Ecole Nationale Superieure d'Arts et Metiers de Meknes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ecole Nationale Superieure d'Arts et Metiers de Meknes presents a robust and well-managed scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.111. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and resilience, with the vast majority of indicators situated in the low or very low-risk categories. Key areas of excellence include a near-absence of retracted publications, hyper-prolific authors, and hyper-authored works, alongside a commendable resistance to national trends in institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two specific vulnerabilities: a medium-risk, above-average rate of publication in discontinued journals and a similar pattern in redundant output (salami slicing). These challenges require strategic attention to align the institution's publication practices with its research strengths, which, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are particularly notable within Morocco in the fields of Energy and Engineering. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks directly threaten the core tenets of academic excellence and social responsibility common to all higher education institutions. Addressing these issues will not only mitigate reputational risk but also ensure that the institution's valuable research contributions are disseminated through credible channels and represent substantive, rather than fragmented, advancements in knowledge.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.725, while the national average is 0.043. This contrast suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, as internal policies appear to effectively mitigate a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution’s low score indicates that its affiliations are well-managed and reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of transparent and accurate credit attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution’s Z-score of -0.475 is well within the very low-risk range, consistent with the low-risk national average of -0.174. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the institution's robust quality control mechanisms are in sync with the national standard. A near-zero rate of retractions is a powerful indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are effectively preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to such corrective actions, thereby safeguarding the reliability of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.168 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 2.028, the institution demonstrates remarkable resilience against a national trend. This indicates that its research impact is validated externally, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-referencing. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s low rate confirms that its academic influence is built on recognition from the global community, not on endogamous dynamics that can artificially inflate perceived importance.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution’s Z-score of 1.496 is in the medium-risk category and notably higher than the national average of 1.078, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This pattern is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.260, a very low-risk value that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.325. This alignment with a low-risk environment confirms that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and well-governed. The data suggests an absence of author list inflation, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and that individual accountability is maintained, which is a cornerstone of responsible research conduct.

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

With a Z-score of -0.833, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, consistent with the national average of -0.751. This indicates a negligible gap between the impact of its overall output and the impact of the research it leads. This is a sign of strong scientific sustainability and genuine internal capacity. The institution's prestige appears to be built on its own intellectual leadership rather than being dependent on the contributions of external partners, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution’s Z-score of -1.413 is firmly in the very low-risk category, reinforcing the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.158). The near-total absence of authors with extreme publication volumes suggests a healthy institutional focus on the quality and substance of research over sheer quantity. This profile mitigates risks such as coercive or honorary authorship and ensures that the scientific record is built on meaningful intellectual contributions, reflecting a culture that prioritizes integrity over metric-driven productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution’s Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This perfect integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment, at both institutional and national levels, to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution’s Z-score of 1.715 indicates a high exposure to this risk, standing out significantly from the national average of 0.628, even though both fall within the medium-risk band. This elevated value serves as a strong alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base. It suggests an urgent need to review publication strategies to ensure they prioritize the communication of significant, coherent knowledge over the maximization of output volume.