FORE School of Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

FORE School of Management presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity alongside specific, high-priority areas for strategic review. With an overall integrity score of -0.286, the institution demonstrates a robust performance, particularly in its capacity to insulate itself from several risk trends prevalent at the national level. Key strengths are evident in the exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation and publication in Discontinued Journals, indicating a culture of external validation and careful selection of publication venues. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a medium-risk signal for Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) that is more pronounced than the national average, and a critical alert regarding the Gap between the impact of its total output and that of the output where it holds a leadership role. This latter indicator suggests that the institution's current scientific prestige may be overly dependent on collaborations led by external partners, posing a sustainability risk. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's academic strengths are concentrated in Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences. The identified risk of "borrowed impact" directly challenges the pursuit of genuine academic excellence and leadership in these core fields. To secure its long-term reputation and impact, it is recommended that the institution leverage its solid integrity framework to develop policies that foster intellectual leadership and incentivize novel, high-value contributions over fragmented productivity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.484, while the national average is -0.927. This represents a slight divergence from the national context, where signals of this activity are virtually non-existent. While the institution's risk level remains low, it is important to monitor this indicator. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, but a value that stands out from a very low national baseline warrants a review to ensure all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive contributions, rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.127, the institution demonstrates considerable resilience compared to the national average of 0.279. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more pronounced across the country. While any retraction is a complex event, the institution’s ability to maintain a low rate in a higher-risk environment points to a robust integrity culture. This performance indicates that its pre-publication quality controls are functioning well, preventing the kind of recurring methodological or ethical failures that a higher score might suggest are happening elsewhere.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.659, a figure that signals preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.520). This exceptionally low value is a strong indicator of scientific openness and external validation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution clearly avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-reference. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community, not on endogamous dynamics that can artificially inflate perceived impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.545 contrasts sharply with the national average of 1.099, indicating a clear disconnection from a concerning trend in its environment. This performance demonstrates excellent due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. A low score here is critical, as a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals often signals a failure to avoid predatory or low-quality venues. The institution’s result suggests its researchers are well-informed and its policies effectively safeguard its reputation and resources from being wasted on channels that lack international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.048 is statistically normal and fully aligned with the national average of -1.024. This indicates that the institution's collaborative practices are consistent with the expectations for its context and size. In fields outside of "Big Science," a high rate of hyper-authorship can signal issues like honorary authorship or diluted accountability. The institution's score, however, suggests its co-authorship patterns are appropriate and do not raise concerns about the inflation of author lists.

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

A Z-score of 3.242 marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.292, representing the most critical risk for the institution. This atypical result requires a deep strategic assessment. The wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall citation impact is high, this prestige is heavily dependent on research where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a significant sustainability risk, as its reputation appears to be exogenous and reliant on external partners rather than built upon its own structural capacity. An urgent reflection is needed to determine whether its excellence metrics reflect genuine internal innovation or a strategic positioning in collaborations that masks a deficit in homegrown scientific leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a low-profile consistency, performing even better than the low-risk national standard (-0.067). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of a balanced research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's very low score suggests a healthy academic culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a Z-score of -0.250. This total alignment reflects a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest by making the institution both judge and party, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific production and confirms that internal channels are not being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 1.020 indicates high exposure to this risk, a level that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.720. Although both the institution and the country show medium-risk signals, the institution appears more prone to this practice. This suggests a potential tendency to fragment coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice of 'salami slicing' not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence available to the community. This indicator warrants a review of institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.