Faculte des Sciences et Techniques Settat

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Faculte des Sciences et Techniques Settat demonstrates a solid overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.072. The institution's primary strengths lie in its responsible authorship practices and the structural sustainability of its research impact, with exceptionally low risk signals in hyper-authorship, hyperprolificacy, and dependency on external leadership. However, this robust foundation is contrasted by medium-risk indicators related to publication strategies, including institutional self-citation, output in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. The institution showcases significant thematic leadership, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranking 2nd in Morocco), Business, Management and Accounting (14th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (19th). While a specific mission statement was not localized, the identified medium-risk areas could undermine any institutional ambition for academic excellence and social responsibility. Practices like publishing in low-quality journals or artificially inflating output contradict the principles of credible and impactful research. To fully capitalize on its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the institution focuses on refining its publication and dissemination policies, ensuring its operational integrity aligns seamlessly with its clear potential for national and international leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.068, which is closely aligned with the national average of 0.043. This proximity suggests that the institution's approach to multiple affiliations reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the shared medium-risk level indicates that both the institution and its national peers may be engaging in practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This shared dynamic warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they transparently reflect genuine collaboration and contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution's risk level is low, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.174. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. Retractions are complex events, and their occurrence is not always negative, as some signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be an area for proactive strengthening to prevent any potential for systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.293, a medium-risk value that is notably lower than the national average of 2.028. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and demonstrates a greater reliance on external validation, thereby avoiding the perception of endogamous impact inflation and reinforcing the global recognition of its work.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.301, a medium-risk signal that indicates a higher exposure to this issue compared to the national average of 1.078. This elevated rate is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to 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 among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.224, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, performing significantly better than the already low national average of -0.325. This result reflects a culture of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. This strong performance indicates that the institution effectively avoids the pitfalls of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. It serves as clear evidence of a commitment to meaningful contribution over the use of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.310, a very low-risk value that is considerably stronger than the national average of -0.751. This excellent result demonstrates a healthy and sustainable research model. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This performance effectively mitigates the sustainability risk of relying on collaborations for impact, confirming that its high-quality research output is a direct result of its internal capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, far below the national average of -0.158. This marked absence of risk signals is a testament to a balanced and healthy research environment. It suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By effectively preventing extreme individual publication rates, the institution avoids the associated risks of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or assignment of authorship without real participation, thus safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average, which shares the same score. This integrity synchrony at a very low-risk level signifies a shared commitment across the country to avoiding academic endogamy. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses potential conflicts of interest and is validated through independent, external peer review. This practice is fundamental for enhancing global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic credentials without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 1.417 represents a medium-risk level and indicates a high exposure to this practice, as it is more than double the national average of 0.628. This significant deviation is an alert that warrants immediate attention. The high value suggests a potential tendency to fragment coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. A review of authorship and publication guidelines is strongly recommended.