| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.027 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.521 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.250 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.279 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.189 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.773 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.083 | 0.628 |
The Ecole Superieure de Technologie Sale presents a complex integrity profile, characterized by a significant contrast between commendable authorship practices and notable vulnerabilities in its publication strategy. With an overall integrity score of 0.265, the institution exhibits a clear division: four indicators are in the very low-risk category, highlighting strengths in preventing hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and impact dependency, while five indicators register at a medium-risk level, signaling systemic challenges related to retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution demonstrates significant thematic strengths, particularly in Environmental Science, where it holds the #2 position in Morocco, as well as strong national rankings in Engineering (#17) and Computer Science (#25). However, the absence of a publicly articulated mission makes it challenging to align these scientific achievements with a broader strategic vision. The identified risks, especially those concerning publication quality and ethics, could undermine any future mission centered on excellence and social responsibility. It is therefore recommended that the institution leverages its areas of scientific strength as a foundation for developing a clear institutional mission, while simultaneously implementing targeted training and policy reforms to address the identified vulnerabilities in its research publication lifecycle.
The institution's Z-score of 0.027 is situated within a national context that also shows a medium risk (Z-score 0.043). This indicates that while the institution operates within a system where multiple affiliations are common, it demonstrates slightly better management and moderation of this practice than the national average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this result suggests the institution is successfully mitigating some of the systemic pressures that can lead to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” though the risk remains present and requires ongoing monitoring.
With a Z-score of 0.521, the institution shows a moderate risk level that deviates significantly from the low-risk national average of -0.174. This suggests the institution is more susceptible to the factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This discrepancy suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating a possible lack of methodological rigor or recurring malpractice that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution registers a Z-score of 1.250, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 2.028. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by keeping this rate below the national trend, the institution reduces its exposure to the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation, showing a greater reliance on external validation than its peers, though the practice is still frequent enough to warrant attention.
The institution's Z-score of 1.279 is slightly higher than the national average of 1.078, placing both in the medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more exposed and prone to this risk than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This heightened exposure indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, posing severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.189, the institution demonstrates an exemplary low-risk profile, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.325. This low-profile consistency reflects robust and healthy authorship practices that align with the national standard of integrity. The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution effectively avoids author list inflation and distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and inappropriate 'honorary' authorship, thereby ensuring individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.
The institution's Z-score of -1.773 is in the very low-risk category, far below the national average of -0.751. This excellent result signifies a low-profile consistency where the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners. The absence of a significant gap indicates that the impact of its research is driven by projects where it exercises intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of internal capacity and sustainability, demonstrating that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own scientific contributions rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, which is substantially better than the national average of -0.158. This result points to a healthy and balanced research environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity of publications. This avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' and indicates that authorship is likely granted for meaningful intellectual contributions, safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony in this area. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows a commendable lack of dependence on its own journals for publication. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 2.083 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.628, indicating a high exposure to this risk. Although both the institution and the country are in a medium-risk zone, the institution is far more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior. A high value warns of the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing.' This dynamic distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, suggesting an institutional tendency to prioritize publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
