| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.215 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.160 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.610 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.262 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.335 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.315 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.478 | 0.387 |
L'IPAG Business School presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a commendable overall score of 0.362 that reflects exceptional governance in most areas of research conduct, juxtaposed with two critical, high-risk outliers. The institution demonstrates outstanding strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant output, indicating a culture that prioritizes external validation and substantive scientific contribution. However, this robust foundation is severely challenged by significant alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Retracted Output. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's strong academic positioning, with notable national rankings in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 15) and Business, Management and Accounting (Top 25), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's mission to train "responsible managers" is directly threatened by these integrity flags; while many of its practices align with this goal, the identified risks could undermine its reputation for excellence and accountability. It is therefore recommended that the institution leverage its clear strengths as a model for internal improvement, launching an urgent and targeted review to understand and rectify the causes of its outlier risk indicators, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully align with its stated mission.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.215, a figure that represents a critical elevation of risk when compared to the national Z-score of 0.648. This indicates that the institution is not only participating in but significantly amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national research system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a rate this disproportionately high signals a potential strategic inflation of institutional credit. This practice, sometimes known as “affiliation shopping,” can distort the perception of the institution's research footprint and warrants an immediate review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive contributions from its researchers.
With a Z-score of 1.160 against a low-risk national average of -0.189, the institution shows a severe and atypical discrepancy in its rate of retractions. This suggests a potential systemic failure in pre-publication quality control mechanisms that is not seen elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm moves beyond individual cases and alerts to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This critical signal points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires an urgent and deep qualitative assessment by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.610 is exceptionally low, positioning it favorably against the country's already low-risk Z-score of -0.200. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the secure national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this institution's very low rate strongly indicates that it avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive internal validation. This is a clear strength, suggesting that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.262, which, while indicating a low risk, represents a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.450, where the risk is virtually non-existent. This subtle difference suggests the institution is showing minor signals of risk activity that do not appear in the rest of the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert, but in this case, the low-level signal serves as a preventive warning. It indicates a need to enhance due diligence and information literacy among researchers in selecting dissemination channels to avoid any potential reputational risk or wasted resources on low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -1.335, the institution demonstrates a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where the country has a medium-risk Z-score of 0.859. This very low rate indicates that the institution does not replicate the trend of author list inflation seen in its environment. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability. This institution's strong performance in this area is a positive signal that it fosters a culture of transparent and meaningful authorship, effectively distinguishing legitimate collaboration from questionable 'honorary' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.315 reflects a low-risk profile, demonstrating institutional resilience when compared to the national medium-risk Z-score of 0.512. This suggests that while there may be a systemic tendency in the country towards impact dependency on external partners, the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating this risk. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is exogenous and not structural. This institution's low gap, however, is a healthy indicator of sustainable, internally-driven research capacity, showing that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine intellectual leadership rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is very low and consistent with the low-risk national standard of -0.654. This alignment shows an absence of risk signals in an area where extreme publication volumes can challenge the integrity of the scientific record. While high productivity can be legitimate, this indicator at a very low level suggests the institution successfully maintains a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It is a positive sign that the institutional culture does not encourage dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing meaningful contributions over inflated metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the country's Z-score of -0.246, reflecting an integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding the potential conflicts of interest that arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. By channeling its research through external venues, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that it is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate output without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.478, the institution shows a profile of preventive isolation, as it does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.387). This very low rate of redundant output is a strong indicator of research quality. It suggests that the institution's authors are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies reinforces the integrity of the scientific evidence base and demonstrates a focus on generating significant new knowledge over mere volume.
