German Jordanian University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The German Jordanian University demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research practice governance but punctuated by a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. The institution exhibits exceptional control over authorship practices, institutional publication channels, and research redundancy, operating in 'preventive isolation' from the higher-risk national environment in Jordan. These strengths are foundational to its mission of fostering robust international cooperation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific excellence is particularly notable in key areas such as Chemistry and Physics and Astronomy, where it ranks 2nd nationally, as well as in Mathematics and Energy. However, this strong performance is severely undermined by an alarmingly high Rate of Retracted Output, which directly contradicts the values of scientific excellence and reliability essential for the international partnerships central to its mission. This critical anomaly, along with a medium-risk signal suggesting a dependency on external partners for research impact, threatens to compromise the university's reputation and its goal of being a true leader in connecting global science and culture. It is imperative that the university leverages its clear governance strengths to conduct a rigorous audit of its pre-publication quality control processes, ensuring its practices fully align with its ambitious and valuable mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -0.589, significantly below the national average of 0.836, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a common risk in its environment. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures for affiliation inflation observed at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's prudent profile indicates a focus on genuine partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping" to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

This indicator presents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score at a significant 5.217, starkly contrasting with the national medium-risk average of 0.101. This discrepancy suggests the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying vulnerabilities present in the system. Retractions are complex, but a rate so far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This alerts to a severe vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and deep qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university shows effective institutional resilience in its citation practices, with a low Z-score of -0.151 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 1.075. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic national risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university's healthy, low rate demonstrates that it avoids the disproportionately high levels that can signal 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits evidence of differentiated management regarding its publication channels. While its Z-score of 0.534 indicates a medium risk, it is substantially lower than the national average of 2.544, showing that the university moderates a risk that is more prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination venues. The university's relative control suggests a more informed approach, which helps mitigate the severe reputational risks and resource wastage associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university maintains a prudent profile in authorship, with a Z-score of -1.083 that is not only low but also below the national average of -0.808. This suggests the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are normal, a low rate is a positive signal. It indicates the university effectively avoids author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

This indicator reveals an area of high exposure, as the institution's Z-score of 0.769 is notably higher than the national average of 0.170. This suggests the university is more prone to this alert signal than its peers. 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 the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners and not yet fully structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university demonstrates a clear state of preventive isolation from national trends in author productivity. Its very low Z-score of -1.178 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.332, indicating the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result here points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

In its use of institutional journals, the university operates in preventive isolation from the national context. The institution's very low Z-score of -0.268 is a strong positive signal, particularly when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.610. This shows the center does not replicate risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, thereby enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a clear preventive isolation from the national tendency towards redundant publications. With a very low Z-score of -1.186 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.522, the university effectively avoids the risk dynamics present in its environment. High bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score suggests a focus on producing significant new knowledge over prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.