University of Jordan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Jordan demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile with a score of 0.925, reflecting a robust foundation of responsible research practices alongside specific areas requiring strategic focus. The institution's primary strength lies in its exceptional resilience against retracted publications, where it significantly outperforms the national context, pointing to effective pre-publication quality controls. It also shows commendable management in moderating institutional self-citation and avoiding discontinued journals more effectively than its national peers. Key vulnerabilities emerge in a high rate of publication within its own institutional journals and a significant gap between the impact of its collaborative research versus that which it leads, suggesting a dependency on external partners. These integrity metrics are crucial for sustaining the university's recognized academic excellence. SCImago Institutions Rankings data confirm its leadership in vital thematic areas, including top national rankings in Medicine, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Psychology, and Veterinary. However, risks such as academic endogamy and dependency on external leadership could subtly undermine its mission to conduct "knowledge-generating research" and foster "innovation and entrepreneurship." To fully realize this vision, the University of Jordan is encouraged to build upon its strengths by implementing policies that promote greater research autonomy and engagement with high-impact, external publication channels, thereby cementing its status as a beacon of scientific integrity and innovation in the region.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Jordan's Z-score for this indicator is 1.201, while the national average for Jordan is 0.836. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk band, the university's score indicates a higher exposure to this particular risk dynamic. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened signal warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive collaborative contributions, rather than "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.071, the University of Jordan exhibits a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.101. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions can stem from honest errors or misconduct, but a low rate like this indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust. This strong performance serves as a firewall against the vulnerabilities present in the wider environment, protecting the university's reputation and affirming its commitment to a culture of integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.511 is notably lower than the national average of 1.075, even though both are classified as medium risk. This points to a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's relative control reduces the danger of creating scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This prudent profile suggests a healthier integration with the global scientific community and a lower risk of inflating its academic influence through purely internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Jordan shows a Z-score of 1.641, which, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably better than the national average of 2.544. This suggests that the institution exercises more effective management and due diligence in selecting publication venues compared to the national trend. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose an institution to severe reputational damage. The university's ability to moderate this risk indicates a greater awareness among its researchers, helping to avoid channeling scientific production into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards and preventing the waste of resources on predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.715 is very close to the country's score of -0.808, with both in the low-risk category. However, the university's slightly higher score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this subtle signal suggests a need for ongoing vigilance to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines. Monitoring is advised to preemptively address any potential for 'honorary' authorship and to ensure that individual contributions are not diluted.

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

With a Z-score of 0.569, the university shows a significantly wider impact gap than the national average of 0.170. This high exposure indicates that the institution's overall scientific prestige is more heavily dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role. This presents a sustainability risk, suggesting that its high-impact reputation may be more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to cultivate greater internal capacity for high-impact, institution-led research, ensuring that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own intellectual leadership rather than a secondary role in partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 0.342 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.332, placing both in the medium-risk category. This alignment reveals a systemic pattern, suggesting that the institutional and national academic environments share common practices or evaluation pressures that may encourage extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this indicator alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. It points to a shared risk of dynamics like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' where metrics may be prioritized over the integrity of the scientific record, a trend that warrants a review of incentive structures at both institutional and national levels.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University of Jordan has a Z-score of 4.080 in this indicator, a figure dramatically higher than the national average of 0.610. This signals a very high exposure and a significant over-reliance on its own in-house journals for dissemination. This practice creates a clear conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process, and raises serious concerns about academic endogamy. Such a high score warns that a substantial portion of its research may be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.754 is higher than the national average of 0.522, indicating a greater exposure to the risk of redundant publications. This suggests a more pronounced tendency within the university toward 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a single coherent study into multiple minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system. The higher-than-average score is an alert that institutional pressures may be prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, impactful knowledge.