Jordan University of Science and Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jordan University of Science and Technology demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low overall risk score of 0.165. The institution's primary strength lies in its effective mitigation of systemic risks prevalent at the national level, showcasing superior performance in controlling retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. This indicates a culture of quality control and a commitment to external validation. While the university exhibits moderate risk in several areas, its performance is consistently better than the national average, particularly in managing affiliations and selecting publication venues. The most significant strategic challenge identified is the notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds intellectual leadership, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for its scientific prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are prominent in areas such as Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine, and Veterinary sciences, where it holds top-tier national and regional rankings. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these findings highlight a potential tension: the commendable integrity framework must be leveraged to cultivate genuine internal research capacity. A dependency on external leadership for impact could undermine a long-term mission of achieving sustainable, self-driven excellence. The university is well-positioned to build upon its solid ethical foundation, and a strategic focus on fostering internal research leadership will be crucial to ensuring its high-impact collaborations translate into enduring institutional strength.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.287, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.836. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university’s more controlled rate indicates a healthier pattern of collaboration, reflecting a focus on substantive partnerships rather than practices that could be perceived as "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding its academic reputation within a national context that shows higher exposure to this risk.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.101, which signals a moderate risk. This performance highlights a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks observed in the broader environment. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate is a strong indicator of responsible supervision and robust quality control mechanisms prior to publication. The university's ability to maintain such a low score suggests its integrity culture effectively prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent nationally.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.461 is significantly below the national average of 1.075, indicating a strong performance in this area. This divergence points to effective institutional policies that buffer it from the risk of endogamous citation practices seen more broadly in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university's low score demonstrates a healthy integration into the global scientific community, suggesting its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal "echo chambers." This avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its work is recognized by the wider academic world.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for publishing in discontinued journals is 1.036, which, while indicating a medium risk, is less than half the national average of 2.544. This demonstrates a more effective management of publication channels compared to its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it suggests that scientific work is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. The university's comparatively lower score indicates a more discerning approach, reducing its exposure to severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality practices and reflecting better information literacy among its researchers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.703, the institution aligns with the low-risk national average of -0.808. However, its score is slightly higher, pointing to a potential incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While both the university and the country show minimal signs of author list inflation, this subtle increase suggests that the institution might be the first to show signals of this risk. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and any potential drift toward "honorary" or political authorship that could dilute individual responsibility.

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

The university's Z-score of 0.742 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.170, highlighting a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be fully structural. The score indicates that while overall impact is high, the impact of research led by the institution itself is comparatively low. This invites critical reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could compromise long-term scientific autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.245 is lower than the national average of 0.332, indicating more effective management of a risk that is moderately present in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The university’s lower score suggests a better-controlled environment, with fewer instances of hyperprolificacy that could signal risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This reflects a healthier institutional dynamic that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.177, the university shows a much lower reliance on its own journals compared to the national average of 0.610. This demonstrates a differentiated management strategy that effectively moderates the risk of academic endogamy. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The university's low score indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research. This practice avoids the potential use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication records, reinforcing the credibility of its scientific output.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.175, placing it in a low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.522, which falls into the medium-risk range. This significant difference highlights the university's institutional resilience against the practice of data fragmentation. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates "salami slicing," where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's negative score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over volume, a practice that upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and respects the academic review system.