| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.873 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.185 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.213 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.362 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.836 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.285 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.411 | 0.387 |
Excelia Business School presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of -0.276 that indicates a generally healthy operational standard with specific, well-defined areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths signal a solid governance framework and a commitment to transparent authorship and dissemination practices. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, the Gap between global and led impact, and the Rate of Redundant Output, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the school's strongest research areas are concentrated in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 14th in France) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (15th in France), underscoring its leadership in its core domain. The identified vulnerabilities, particularly those related to self-citation and impact dependency, could challenge the institution's mission to train "responsible professionals" and "contribute to the transformation of organisations," as they may suggest a focus on internal metrics over externally validated, transformative impact. To fully align its scientific practices with its mission, Excelia Business School is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in governance to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and social responsibility through unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.873, a signal of very low risk that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.648, which falls into the medium-risk category. This significant difference suggests a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the school does not replicate the risk patterns observed more broadly in its national environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Excelia Business School’s very low score indicates that its internal governance effectively ensures that affiliations are transparent and directly linked to genuine collaboration, avoiding the practice of “affiliation shopping” and maintaining clear institutional accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, performing with slightly more rigor than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.189. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication review. In this case, the institution's score, being even lower than the national average, points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor and responsible supervision likely minimize the occurrence of errors that could lead to retractions, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.185 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.200, which indicates low risk. This suggests the center shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While some self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates 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 oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that warrants a review of citation practices.
A Z-score of -0.213 places the institution in the low-risk category, yet this represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the average Z-score of -0.450 indicates very low risk. This finding suggests the center shows minor signals of risk activity that are largely absent in the rest of the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the institution's risk is low, this slight elevation compared to an almost inert national landscape indicates a need for continued vigilance to ensure all researchers are equipped to identify and avoid predatory or low-quality publishing venues.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.362, in stark contrast to the French national average of 0.859, which is in the medium-risk range. This indicates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution’s practices are insulated from the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. Excelia Business School’s very low score strongly suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship.
With a Z-score of 0.836, the institution shows a medium-risk signal that indicates high exposure to this vulnerability, especially when compared to the national average of 0.512. This suggests the center is more prone than its peers to this particular risk. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.285 is in the low-risk category, but it reveals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.654. Although the risk is contained, the center shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution’s score, while low, is higher than the national baseline, suggesting a need to monitor for potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, ensuring that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.246, with both falling in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The very low scores for both the institution and the country indicate that scientific production is overwhelmingly channeled through external, independent peer-reviewed venues, ensuring global visibility and competitive validation, and avoiding any risk of using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 0.411 (medium risk) is nearly identical to the French national average of 0.387, indicating a systemic pattern. This alignment suggests that the observed risk level reflects shared practices or norms at a national level rather than an issue unique to the institution. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The medium-risk score, both for the institution and the country, suggests that this is a widespread challenge, pointing to a potential systemic pressure that prioritizes publication volume over the dissemination of significant, coherent new knowledge.
