Ecole Nationale des Sciences Appliquees de Tanger

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Ecole Nationale des Sciences Appliquees de Tanger demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.347. This performance indicates a strong alignment with international best practices and a notable resilience against systemic risks. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyper-authorship, redundant publication, and multiple affiliations, suggesting a culture of responsible and transparent research conduct. However, moderate risks are identified in the areas of institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, which require strategic attention. These findings are contextualized by the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Mathematics, Engineering, and Computer Science. To fully realize its mission of contributing to "national and international alliances" and fostering "economic and scientific development," it is crucial to address these moderate risks, as they could undermine the external validation and global visibility essential for excellence. By reinforcing due diligence in publication channels and promoting broader external engagement, the institution can further solidify its reputation as a leading center for engineering and applied sciences.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.044, a value significantly lower than the national average of 0.043. This result demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the center successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. While the broader context shows a moderate tendency towards practices that could inflate institutional credit, such as "affiliation shopping," the institution maintains a very low rate of multiple affiliations. This points to a stable and clearly defined research staff, whose affiliations are transparent and not leveraged to artificially enhance institutional metrics, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.512, the institution's rate of retracted publications is well below the national average of -0.174. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of significant risk signals aligns with the national standard of responsible research conduct. The data suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effective, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions. This performance reflects a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing the need for post-publication corrections due to malpractice or severe error.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.447, which, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably lower than the national average of 2.028. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution effectively moderates a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. Although a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's score indicates a need to ensure its work receives sufficient external scrutiny to avoid creating an 'echo chamber.' By managing this indicator more effectively than its national peers, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, but should continue to foster external collaboration to ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.156, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is slightly above the national average of 1.078. This signals a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating that the center is more prone to these alert signals than its environment. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy and due diligence processes among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication channels.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.231, markedly below the national average of -0.325. This excellent result indicates low-profile consistency, with the institution's practices aligning with a national environment already at low risk for this indicator. The data confirms that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution avoids patterns of author list inflation. This reflects a culture where individual accountability and transparency are valued, effectively preventing the dilution of responsibility that can occur with 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.070 is notably better than the national average of -0.751. This score demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with a national context where dependency on external partners for impact is not a primary risk. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is largely generated by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This is a sign of strong internal capacity and sustainable academic excellence, showing that its impact metrics are a result of its own structural capabilities rather than a dependency on external collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution is far below the national average of -0.158. This signifies a state of low-profile consistency, where the institution's performance surpasses the already low-risk national standard. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output. It indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average. This perfect alignment points to a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution's practices are in complete harmony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The very low score for both the institution and the country shows that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility through competitive, standard validation channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.628, which sits at a medium risk level. This contrast signals a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While the national context shows some vulnerability to data fragmentation, the institution demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing complete and significant studies. This practice avoids artificially inflating productivity through 'salami slicing,' thereby respecting the scientific record and the academic review system.