Middle East University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Middle East University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a significant overall risk score (Z-score: 2.183) that reveals a sharp contrast between areas of exceptional governance and zones of critical vulnerability. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining intellectual autonomy, with a very low risk in the gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, alongside minimal evidence of academic endogamy or data fragmentation. These strengths are foundational. However, they are overshadowed by significant risks in four key areas: multiple affiliations, retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship, where the university not only reflects but amplifies national vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include a top national ranking in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and strong positions in Physics and Astronomy (#5 in Jordan) and Business, Management and Accounting (#9 in Jordan). This academic excellence is directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The institution's mission to "prepare leaders" and create a "stimulating" research environment is undermined when practices suggest a prioritization of quantity over quality and accountability. To safeguard its reputation and align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its clear capacity for good governance to conduct a targeted review of its authorship, affiliation, and publication channel selection policies, transforming these critical vulnerabilities into pillars of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.083, a critical value that significantly exceeds the national average of 0.836. This disparity indicates that the university is not only participating in but also intensifying a risk pattern already present at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a strong signal of potential "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit. The magnitude of this indicator suggests an urgent need to review institutional policies on affiliation to ensure they reflect genuine contributions and collaborations rather than metric-driven inflation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.052, the university's rate of retracted publications is substantially higher than the national average of 0.101, pointing to an accentuation of a systemic vulnerability. A rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is a critical alert that transcends isolated incidents of error correction, pointing instead to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates a high probability of recurring methodological flaws or malpractice that requires immediate and thorough qualitative investigation by management to protect the institution's scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.913, which is slightly below the national average of 1.075. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution demonstrates more effective management and moderation of this risk compared to its national peers. This suggests a healthier balance in research validation practices, showing a reduced tendency towards the formation of 'echo chambers' or scientific isolation. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution is less exposed to the risk of endogamous impact inflation, indicating its academic influence is more reliant on external recognition than the national trend.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 4.640 is a critical red flag, dramatically amplifying the national medium-risk average of 2.544. This score indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a high concentration of output in discontinued journals exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. It points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines for researchers to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.029, the institution demonstrates a more prudent approach to authorship than the national standard, which has a score of -0.808. Both scores are in the low-risk category, but the university's more negative value indicates that its processes are managed with greater rigor. This profile suggests the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and the risk of author list inflation. This is a positive signal of good governance, reflecting a culture that values transparency and individual accountability in authorship.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.218, a sign of exceptional strength, particularly when contrasted with the national medium-risk score of 0.170. This demonstrates a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A negative score signifies that the impact of research led by the institution is high, indicating that its scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity. This result points to a sustainable and robust research ecosystem, where excellence is structural and reflects true intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 2.648 is a significant alert, drastically amplifying the national medium-risk score of 0.332. This indicates that the institution is a focal point for a national vulnerability related to extreme publication volumes. Such a high concentration of hyperprolific authors challenges the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and points to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. This indicator raises serious concerns about practices such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation, all of which prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with very low risk in an area where the country shows medium risk (0.610). This demonstrates a commendable isolation from national trends toward academic endogamy. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific production, signaling a commitment to competitive, international standards of validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.791 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.522. This shows a clear preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. The near-absence of this signal indicates that the university's research culture prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity. This responsible practice avoids the fragmentation of studies into 'minimal publishable units,' thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reducing the burden on the peer-review system.