| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.743 | 0.648 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.165 | -0.189 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.718 | -0.200 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.132 | -0.450 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | 0.859 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.669 | 0.512 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.654 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.246 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.145 | 0.387 |
ICN Business School demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.015. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in several key areas, maintaining very low risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, often outperforming national benchmarks. These results indicate a strong culture of external validation and responsible authorship. However, this positive overview is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which requires immediate strategic attention. Moderate risks are also noted in the impact dependency gap and the rate of redundant output, although the latter is managed more effectively than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the school's primary research strengths lie in Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Energy; and Social Sciences. To fully align with a mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. An integrity framework that prioritizes transparency in affiliations will ensure that the institution's reputation for excellence is built on substantive internal capacity and not on practices that could be perceived as merely strategic, thereby solidifying its position as a leader in its fields.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.743, a value that indicates a significant risk level and stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.648. This comparison suggests that the institution is not merely participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the French system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical need to review authorship and affiliation policies. The data points towards a potential systemic practice of strategic affiliation to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a dynamic that could compromise the transparency and meritocratic basis of its academic reputation. An urgent internal audit of affiliation practices is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than metric optimization.
With a Z-score of -0.165, the institution's performance is statistically normal and fully aligned with the national average of -0.189. This indicates that the level of risk associated with retracted publications is as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this low score suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning appropriately, without evidence of systemic failures prior to publication. The data provides confidence that, should errors occur, they are likely handled as part of a responsible supervision process rather than indicating a recurring vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -1.718, indicating a very low risk and a profile significantly more robust than the national average of -0.200. This result reflects a commendable absence of risk signals, consistent with a secure national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this extremely low rate confirms that the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. It provides strong evidence that the school's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global scientific community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics, showcasing a high degree of external scrutiny and integration.
The institution's Z-score of -0.132, corresponding to a low risk, shows a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.450. This suggests the emergence of minor risk signals that are not as prevalent across the rest of the country. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may occur, but this score indicates a slightly higher-than-average exposure to channels that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. While not a critical alert, this finding warrants a proactive review of dissemination guidelines and researcher training to enhance due diligence in selecting publication venues, thereby preventing potential reputational damage and the misallocation of research efforts into low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution shows a very low risk in this area, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.859). This preventive isolation is a clear strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the national trend towards potentially inflated author lists. In fields outside of "Big Science," high rates can signal a dilution of individual accountability. This institution's very low score suggests a culture where authorship is assigned with transparency and reflects genuine contribution, successfully distinguishing its practices from honorary or political authorship trends seen elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score of 0.669 reflects a medium risk level, which is slightly higher than the national average of 0.512. This indicates a higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. The positive gap suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reliance on exogenous impact, while common, is more pronounced here and invites a strategic reflection on sustainability. The data suggests a need to foster and promote internal research capacity to ensure that its high-impact metrics are a direct result of its own structural strengths and not just a consequence of strategic positioning in partnerships.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, a figure that is not only low in absolute terms but also significantly better than the national average of -0.654. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. This institution's excellent result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of the kind of hyper-productivity that could point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This reinforces a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in complete alignment with the national average of -0.246, both of which represent a very low-risk environment. This integrity synchrony signifies a shared commitment to avoiding potential conflicts of interest. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses any risk of academic endogamy and is subjected to independent, external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its publication channels are not used as 'fast tracks' for inflating academic records but are chosen based on merit and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.145, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates differentiated management when compared to the higher national average of 0.387. This suggests that while the institution operates within a system where data fragmentation is a common issue, it is successfully moderating this risk more effectively than its peers. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. The institution's lower score, though still in a cautionary range, points to better control mechanisms that encourage the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
