Neoma Business School

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Neoma Business School presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.248, indicating performance superior to the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from risks prevalent at the national level. These areas of excellence form a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk gap between its overall and led-research impact, a notable concentration of hyperprolific authors, and signals of redundant publication. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's outstanding leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its top national ranking in Business, Management and Accounting and strong positions in Psychology, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Arts and Humanities according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not provided for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities, particularly those related to authorship and impact dependency, could challenge universal academic values of sustainable excellence and intellectual leadership. By addressing these medium-risk indicators, Neoma Business School can fully align its operational practices with its demonstrated thematic strengths, ensuring its reputation for quality is built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.377, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of risk in this area, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.648. This indicates a successful preventive isolation from risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests it effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions of its scientific output.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.174 is statistically normal and fully aligned with the national average of -0.189. This parity suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning as expected within its context. Retractions are complex events, and this low level indicates that occurrences are likely the result of honest correction of unintentional errors, signifying responsible supervision, rather than systemic failures in its integrity culture or methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.349 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.200, demonstrating low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard of integrity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution avoids concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result is a strong indicator that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's performance in this indicator (Z-score: -0.467) signals total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already low national average (-0.450). This demonstrates an exemplary due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. By completely avoiding journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects itself from severe reputational risks and ensures its resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.163, the institution shows a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.859). This strong performance indicates that the institutional culture successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By maintaining this control, the institution upholds individual accountability and transparency, avoiding the dilution of responsibility that can arise from 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.617 is in the medium-risk range and shows a higher exposure to this vulnerability compared to the national average of 0.512. This suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations than on its own structural capacity. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could result more from strategic positioning in partnerships than from real internal capacity for intellectual leadership, inviting a reflection on its collaboration strategy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.391 indicates a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.654). This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to factors encouraging extreme publication volumes. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These dynamics prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of internal incentive structures.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows total operational silence in this area, performing even better than the low-risk national average (-0.246). This result indicates a complete absence of academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production systematically undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving competitive validation and maximizing global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.354 places it in the medium-risk category, but its differentiated management of this issue is evident as it remains below the national average of 0.387. While the risk is present, the institution appears to moderate the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' more effectively than its national peers. This suggests an opportunity to further strengthen policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units.