| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.770 | 0.043 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.699 | -0.174 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.447 | 2.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.424 | 1.078 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.330 | -0.325 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.050 | -0.751 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.956 | -0.158 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.262 | 0.628 |
Ecole Mohammadia d'Ingenieurs presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.212 indicating performance slightly above the global average risk level. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and dependency on institutional journals, reflecting a solid foundation in authorship ethics and a commitment to external validation. However, areas of medium risk, particularly in retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's thematic strengths are notable in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, Energy, and Mathematics, where it ranks among the top national performers. These risk indicators, especially those related to publication quality and integrity, pose a direct challenge to the institution's mission of providing "high-performance, innovative and productive research." To fully align its practices with its mission, the institution should leverage its foundational strengths to implement enhanced quality control and due diligence protocols, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and its role in advancing the national socio-economic fabric.
The institution shows a low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.770), demonstrating effective control over a practice that presents a medium-level risk nationally (Z-score: 0.043). This suggests that the institution's internal governance successfully mitigates systemic pressures for this behavior seen elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's prudent approach helps it avoid signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" and reinforces the integrity of its institutional credit.
The institution exhibits a medium-level rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.699), a noticeable deviation from the low-risk profile of the national average (Z-score: -0.174). This suggests a greater sensitivity to factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. A rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently, suggesting a need for a qualitative review to determine if these are honest corrections or signs of recurring methodological issues requiring immediate management attention.
With a Z-score of 0.447, the institution's rate of self-citation is at a medium level, yet it demonstrates significantly better control than the national average, which shows a much higher risk in this area (Z-score: 2.028). This indicates a differentiated management approach that successfully moderates a common national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's comparatively lower rate helps it avoid the appearance of an 'echo chamber' or endogamous impact inflation, suggesting its academic influence is less reliant on internal validation and more open to external scrutiny.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is a medium-risk concern (Z-score: 1.424), and it shows a higher exposure to this issue than the national average (Z-score: 1.078). This elevated rate constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.330), a signal of robust integrity that aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.325). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy approach to authorship. By avoiding patterns of author list inflation, the institution upholds individual accountability and transparency, effectively preventing practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution shows a very low gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: -1.050), a profile that is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.751). This indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity. This strong internal leadership in research suggests a sustainable model of excellence, where impact is generated by genuine internal capabilities rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
With a very low rate of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: -0.956), the institution demonstrates a commitment to research quality that is in line with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.158). The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality. This helps prevent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, ensuring that productivity metrics reflect genuine scientific advancement.
The institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low (Z-score: -0.268), perfectly aligning with the national average (Z-score: -0.268) and reflecting an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This demonstrates a clear preference for external, independent peer review over internal channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through competitive global standards and enhancing its international visibility.
The institution presents a medium-level risk for redundant publications (Z-score: 0.262), but its performance indicates more effective management of this issue compared to the national context, which shows a higher propensity for this behavior (Z-score: 0.628). This suggests the institution is better at moderating the practice of 'salami slicing.' By controlling the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units, the institution better upholds the integrity of the scientific record and prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
