Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.257. This solid performance is anchored in exceptional control over key integrity areas, including extremely low rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship, indicating a healthy and sustainable research culture. However, the institution shows a higher-than-average exposure to risks associated with multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and redundant output, which require strategic attention. These findings are contextualized by the institution's strong national standing in several key disciplines, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Social Sciences (ranked 13th in France), Chemistry (35th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (35th). To fully align with its mission of excellence in "training, research and transfer-innovation," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Practices like self-citation and redundant output can undermine the perceived quality and external validation of research, potentially hindering effective innovation transfer. By proactively managing these medium-risk areas, the Institut can further solidify its reputation as a leader in responsible and impactful scientific advancement.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.376 is notably higher than the national average of 0.648. This suggests the institution is more susceptible to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers, even though both operate within a medium-risk context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate signals a need for review. It may indicate strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the institution's distinct research identity and create ambiguity in attributing scientific contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.503, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average (-0.189). This result indicates a strong and effective system of quality control and responsible supervision prior to publication. The near-absence of these complex events suggests that the institution's integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures, reinforcing its commitment to reliable scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.412 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.200, indicating a greater tendency toward institutional self-citation than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, this higher rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.441 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.450, demonstrating complete alignment with a national environment of maximum security in this area. This shared, extremely low rate indicates that researchers are effectively exercising due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels. The data confirms that the institution is not channeling its scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.545 in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.859. This suggests that its internal governance and authorship policies effectively mitigate the systemic pressures for author list inflation observed elsewhere in the country. In disciplines where extensive author lists are not the norm, this low rate confirms a healthy approach to authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution shows a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with an extremely low-risk Z-score of -1.072 compared to the medium-risk country average of 0.512. This negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and self-sufficient, avoiding the sustainability risks associated with dependency on external partners. This result is a powerful indicator of structural scientific prestige and real internal capacity, demonstrating that the institution's excellence metrics are driven by its own intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average (-0.654). This finding suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close synchrony with the national average of -0.246, reflecting a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. This very low rate of publication in its own journals demonstrates that the institution's research output consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for global visibility and competitive validation. The data confirms that internal channels are not being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and reinforcing the credibility of its scientific production.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.467 indicates a high exposure to redundant publication practices, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.387 within the same medium-risk category. This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior often referred to as 'salami slicing.' While citing previous work is necessary, this level of bibliographic overlap suggests a risk of distorting the scientific evidence and prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, which warrants a review of institutional research and publication guidelines.