Applied Science Private University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Applied Science Private University presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by both commendable strengths and significant vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 1.593, the institution demonstrates robust internal governance in key areas, such as maintaining strong intellectual leadership in its research (Gap between Impact) and avoiding academic endogamy by not over-relying on institutional journals. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, and Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest systemic issues in quality control, affiliation strategy, and publication channel selection. These risks directly challenge the University's mission to achieve a "distinguished position" through high "governance standards," as they compromise the credibility and sustainability of its research output. Despite these challenges, the institution shows notable academic strength in several fields, ranking prominently within Jordan according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 3), as well as Business, Management and Accounting and Social Sciences (both Top 5). To fully leverage these thematic strengths and align its practices with its mission of excellence, it is imperative for the University to implement targeted interventions that address the identified integrity risks, thereby ensuring its long-term reputation and contribution to the global scientific community.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.948 in this indicator, a figure that is critically high and significantly exceeds the national average of 0.836. This disparity suggests that the University is not merely following a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the Jordanian system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate points towards a potential systemic strategy to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This practice, far exceeding the national norm, requires an urgent review of institutional policies to ensure that affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than a tool for metric enhancement.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.310, the University's rate of retracted publications is alarmingly high, especially when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.101. This severe deviation indicates that the institution is intensifying a risk factor that is already a concern within the country. A rate so significantly above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is not merely a matter of correcting honest errors; it alerts to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, potentially stemming from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.815, which is notably higher than the national average of 1.075, although both are classified as medium risk. This indicates that the institution has a higher exposure to the associated risks than its peers across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of potential scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers.' It suggests the institution may be more prone to validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny, creating a risk of endogamous impact inflation where its academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 2.895 for publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the medium-risk vulnerability observed at the national level (2.544). This high value indicates a systemic issue with due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a substantial portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' publishing and signals an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources and compromising scientific credibility.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.804 is low and virtually identical to the national average of -0.808, indicating a state of statistical normality. This alignment demonstrates that the University's authorship practices are consistent with the expected standards for its context. The absence of risk signals in this area is a positive sign, suggesting that the institution effectively avoids issues of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authors. This reflects a healthy approach to attributing credit and maintaining transparency and accountability in its collaborative research.

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

The University demonstrates exceptional performance in this area with a Z-score of -1.227, signifying a very low risk. This result is particularly noteworthy as it represents a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.170). A negative score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is stronger than its overall collaborative impact. This is a clear sign of robust internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and self-generated, not merely dependent on the influence of external partners.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 1.970, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of 0.332, placing it in a position of high exposure within a medium-risk national context. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is a very low-risk signal that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.610. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the University successfully avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review ensures its scientific production is subject to standard competitive validation, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score for redundant output is 1.340, a figure that, while in the medium-risk category, is substantially higher than the national average of 0.522. This suggests the institution has a high exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. The high degree of bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, aimed at artificially inflating productivity by dividing a single study into minimal publishable units, distorts the scientific evidence base and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.