| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.804 | 1.081 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | -0.098 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.720 | 0.798 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.453 | 0.639 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.268 | -0.628 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.008 | 0.543 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.083 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.212 | -0.140 |
The Universite de Yaounde II presents a balanced and generally low-risk integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.055. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance and research culture, evidenced by very low-risk indicators in Hyper-Authored Output, the Gap between led and total impact, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results signal a strong foundation of scientific independence and a focus on quality over quantity. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically the medium-risk rates of publication in Discontinued Journals, Redundant Output, and Institutional Self-Citation. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the institution's strong national reputation, particularly in its leading thematic areas as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked #2 in Cameroon), Business, Management and Accounting (#3), and Social Sciences (#5). To fully align with a mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address these risks, as they can compromise the quality and reliability of the scientific record. A proactive approach focusing on enhancing researcher training and publication guidelines will be key to solidifying its position as a leader in both research output and scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.804, the institution demonstrates a low rate of multiple affiliations, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 1.081. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic pressures for this practice observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the institution's controlled approach helps to prevent signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to inflate institutional credit, thereby reinforcing the clarity and integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.099) is in almost perfect alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.098), reflecting statistical normality for its context. Both scores are in the low-risk category, indicating that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning as expected. Retractions are complex events, but the current rate does not suggest any systemic failure in the institution's integrity culture or a recurring lack of methodological rigor that would require special intervention.
The institution exhibits a medium rate of self-citation (Z-score: 0.720), a pattern that is also present at the national level (Z-score: 0.798). However, the institution's score is notably lower than the country's average, pointing to a differentiated management of this practice. This suggests that while the institution engages in self-citation, which is natural for building on established research lines, it does so more moderately than its national peers. This controlled approach helps mitigate the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and promotes a healthier balance between internal consolidation and external validation from the global research community.
A significant alert is noted in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, where the institution's Z-score of 1.453 indicates high exposure and is substantially higher than the national average of 0.639. This finding suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling its scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to improve information literacy and due diligence among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality dissemination channels.
The institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.268), a signal of good practice that is even more robust than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.628). This low-profile consistency demonstrates an institutional culture that values clear and accountable authorship. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that practices such as author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships are not prevalent, which reinforces transparency and recognizes meaningful individual contributions to research.
A key institutional strength is revealed in the very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads (Z-score: -1.008), which represents a preventive isolation from the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.543). This result signals strong scientific independence and robust internal capacity. Unlike the national dynamic, the institution's prestige does not appear to be dependent on external partners. This indicates that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term sustainability and scientific sovereignty.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even lower than the country's very low average of -1.083. This total operational silence is a strong positive indicator of a healthy research environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. It suggests that the institutional culture effectively discourages dynamics such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and in perfect alignment with the national standard. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its credibility and international visibility.
The institution presents a medium-risk signal for redundant output (Z-score: 0.212), a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.140). This suggests the institution shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its peers. This value serves as an alert to the potential practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic warrants a review of publication practices, as it can distort the available scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
