| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.157 | 1.081 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | -0.098 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.260 | 0.798 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.867 | 0.639 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.857 | -0.628 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.046 | 0.543 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.716 | -1.083 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.565 | -0.140 |
The Université de Dschang presents a solid overall performance profile (Score: 0.165), characterized by significant strengths in research autonomy and integrity, alongside specific vulnerabilities in its publication and citation patterns. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over intellectual leadership, with a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research, and maintains very low risk in academic endogamy and redundant publications. However, areas of concern emerge in the form of high institutional self-citation and a notable rate of publication in discontinued journals, which suggest a degree of scientific isolation and a need for enhanced due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. These challenges contrast with the university's recognized leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its top national rankings in fields such as Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of bringing research "to the highest level," it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as practices that inflate impact internally or rely on low-quality channels can undermine the goal of transmitting knowledge with excellence and global relevance. By leveraging its proven internal research capacity, the university is well-positioned to refine its dissemination strategy, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions achieve the broad and credible impact they deserve.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 1.157, placing it in a medium-risk category and slightly above the national average of 1.081. This indicates that the university is more exposed than its national peers to practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this heightened rate suggests a systemic pattern that mirrors national trends but with greater intensity, warranting a review to ensure that all affiliations reflect substantive collaborative contributions rather than "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's rate of retracted output is low but slightly more pronounced than the national baseline of -0.098. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Although retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors, a rate that edges above the national norm, even if still low, serves as an early warning. It suggests a need for proactive monitoring to prevent potential systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture from escalating.
The university exhibits a Z-score of 2.260 in institutional self-citation, a figure significantly higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.798. This high exposure points to a pronounced risk of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work is validated internally rather than by the broader academic community. Such a disproportionately high rate can create an endogamous impact loop, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics, potentially limiting its global reach and external scrutiny.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 0.867) is higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.639), indicating a greater institutional susceptibility to this risk factor. This elevated score is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -0.857 that is more favorable than the national average of -0.628. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution effectively mitigates the risk of author list inflation, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.
The university shows exceptional strength in this area, with a Z-score of -1.046, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.543. This result signifies a preventive isolation from the dependency risks seen elsewhere in the country. The institution's scientific prestige appears to be structurally sound and driven by genuine internal capacity, as its impact is not reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model of research excellence and autonomy.
A slight divergence from the national trend is observed in this indicator, with the institution showing a low-risk signal (Z-score: -0.716) in a national context of very low risk (Z-score: -1.083). This suggests the emergence of isolated cases of extreme individual publication volumes that are not characteristic of the rest of the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, this signal warrants a review to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality and to guard against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony in this domain. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security indicates that the use of in-house journals is not a source of concern. The very low risk level confirms that these channels are not being used to bypass independent external peer review or to create 'fast tracks' for publication, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy.
With a Z-score of -0.565, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile for redundant publications, which is even more robust than the low-risk national standard of -0.140. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national benchmark. The data confirms that the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern, reflecting a commitment to generating significant new knowledge over mere volume.
