| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.141 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.803 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.636 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.785 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.461 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.404 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.782 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.590 | 0.522 |
Hashemite University presents a robust overall integrity profile, characterized by a low global risk score of 0.236. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in critical areas, including a virtually non-existent rate of retracted publications and effective control over hyperprolific authorship and impact dependency, consistently outperforming national averages. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, areas of moderate risk require strategic attention, specifically a tendency toward publishing in institutional journals and a rate of redundant output that is higher than the national benchmark. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific leadership is undisputed in key national development fields, ranking first in Jordan for Energy and Environmental Science, and holding top-tier positions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chemistry, and Engineering. This thematic excellence must be safeguarded by addressing the identified integrity vulnerabilities. The university's mission to foster "moral responsibility" and "fundamental values" is directly supported by its strong performance in low-risk areas but is potentially undermined by practices that could suggest academic endogamy or a focus on quantity over substance. To fully align its scientific practice with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its existing integrity controls to mitigate these moderate risks, ensuring its technical competence is built upon an unshakeable ethical foundation.
The university's Z-score of -0.141, compared to the country's Z-score of 0.836, demonstrates notable institutional resilience. While the national context shows a medium risk level for this indicator, the university maintains a low-risk profile, suggesting its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures seen elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The university's controlled approach indicates a healthy and transparent management of its collaborative ties, reinforcing its commitment to genuine partnership.
With a Z-score of -0.409 against a national score of 0.101, the institution exhibits a state of preventive isolation from country-level risk dynamics. Its very low risk score, in contrast to the country's medium level, indicates that the university does not replicate the integrity vulnerabilities observed in its environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university's excellent result in this area points to robust integrity mechanisms and responsible supervision, ensuring that its scientific record is sound and that potential malpractice or methodological flaws are effectively prevented before publication.
The university's performance, with a Z-score of 0.803 versus the country's 1.075, reflects a differentiated management approach. Although both the institution and the country operate at a medium risk level, the university's score is notably lower, indicating it is successfully moderating a trend that appears common nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The university's relative control suggests a healthier balance, though continued monitoring is warranted to ensure its academic influence is consistently validated by the global community and not just by internal dynamics.
This indicator, with an institutional Z-score of 1.636 compared to the national 2.544, points to a pattern of differentiated management. While the university operates within an environment where publishing in discontinued journals is a shared medium-risk practice, its score is significantly lower than the country average. This suggests a more effective, though not yet perfect, due diligence process in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding reputational risk and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices. The university's ability to moderate this risk relative to its peers is a positive sign, but further strengthening information literacy for researchers remains a key area for improvement.
The institution's risk level in this area aligns with statistical normality for its context, with a Z-score of -0.785 that is nearly identical to the national average of -0.808. This consistency indicates that the university's practices regarding authorship in large collaborations are in line with its peers. In specific fields, extensive author lists are legitimate; however, outside these contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. The university's low score suggests that its collaborative research maintains a healthy standard of transparency, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable honorary authorship practices.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a national trend of impact dependency, with a Z-score of -0.461 in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.170. This performance indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is largely generated by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. A very wide positive gap can signal that excellence is dependent and exogenous rather than structural. The university's result, however, points to a sustainable model where its high-impact work is a product of genuine internal capacity, a crucial factor for long-term scientific sovereignty and development.
In this domain, the university shows effective institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.404 against the country's 0.332. It maintains a low-risk profile in a national context where hyperprolificity presents a medium-level risk, suggesting that its policies or academic culture successfully mitigate this pressure. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's low score indicates a balanced approach to productivity that safeguards the integrity of its scientific record.
The analysis reveals a high exposure to this particular risk factor, with the university's Z-score of 0.782 being notably higher than the national average of 0.610. This indicates the institution is more prone to this practice than its peers. While in-house journals can serve local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns and risks academic endogamy by potentially bypassing independent external peer review. This pattern may limit global visibility and could suggest the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts, a dynamic that warrants a strategic review of its publication policies.
The university shows a high exposure to this risk, with a medium-level Z-score of 0.590 that exceeds the national average of 0.522. This suggests the institution is more susceptible to this practice than its environment. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The university's score serves as an alert to review publication strategies and reinforce the value of presenting significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
