Zarqa University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Zarqa University presents a dual profile of scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in research governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.839, the institution demonstrates robust internal controls in key areas, such as a low rate of retractions, a strong commitment to external validation over institutional journals, and a remarkable capacity for high-impact, internally-led research. These strengths are foundational. However, they are contrasted by significant-risk indicators in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest systemic issues that could undermine the credibility of its research output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university excels thematically, holding top national rankings in Arts and Humanities, Physics and Astronomy, and Social Sciences. This academic leadership is directly threatened by the identified integrity risks; a mission focused on producing "qualified manpower" and conducting "applied academic research for the community" is compromised when research impact is potentially inflated internally or disseminated through unreliable channels. To safeguard its reputation and fully leverage its academic strengths, Zarqa University should prioritize a strategic review of its publication and citation practices, fostering a culture that aligns its impressive research capacity with the highest standards of global scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of 0.835, Zarqa University's performance is nearly identical to the national average of 0.836. This alignment indicates that the institution's approach to researcher affiliations reflects a systemic pattern, likely influenced by shared practices or regulations at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the moderate level observed both at the institution and across the country suggests a common dynamic that warrants awareness, ensuring that these collaborations are driven by genuine scientific synergy rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, positioning it favorably against the national average of 0.101. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of retraction that are more prevalent in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing; conversely, the university's low score is a positive signal of effective pre-publication supervision and a robust culture of methodological rigor, protecting its scientific record from the need for corrective action.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

Zarqa University shows a Z-score of 5.504, a critical value that significantly exceeds the national average of 1.075. This finding points to a pronounced accentuation of risk, where the institution amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While some self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 3.214 is significantly higher than the national average of 2.544, indicating an accentuation of risk in its publication strategy. This high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.910, the university maintains a more prudent profile compared to the national average of -0.808. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate inflation of author lists, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's controlled rate suggests a healthy culture where authorship is likely assigned based on meaningful contribution, avoiding practices of 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

Zarqa University's Z-score of -3.847 represents a stark and positive contrast to the national average of 0.170. This demonstrates a preventive isolation from national trends, where the institution does not replicate the risk of dependency on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is exogenous; however, the university's strong negative score indicates that the research led by its own authors is more impactful than its collaborative output. This is a powerful indicator of sustainable, structural research excellence and true intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.909 reveals a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.332. This suggests the university is more prone to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This indicator serves as an alert to review for potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university effectively isolates itself from the risks associated with academic endogamy, a significant achievement compared to the national average of 0.610. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. The institution's very low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking external validation through competitive, international channels, thereby enhancing the global visibility and credibility of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 1.837 indicates a high exposure to this practice, substantially exceeding the national average of 0.522. This high value alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This pattern suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, new knowledge over sheer volume.