Lebanese International University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Lebanese International University (LIU) presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.953 indicating a medium level of vulnerability. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining intellectual leadership and ensuring its research undergoes external validation, as evidenced by a very low rate of output in its own journals and a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. However, these strengths are critically undermined by a significant alert in the Rate of Retracted Output, which is exceptionally high and points to systemic weaknesses in pre-publication quality control. This primary concern is compounded by medium-level risks in self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship, suggesting a need for a strategic review of research and publication policies. These findings are particularly relevant given LIU's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including top-three rankings in Lebanon for Environmental Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Psychology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's mission to provide "excellence and quality of first order" is directly challenged by indicators that suggest a potential compromise in research integrity. To bridge this gap, LIU should leverage its clear thematic strengths and areas of good governance as a foundation for implementing robust integrity frameworks. A proactive approach will ensure that its operational reality fully aligns with its aspirational mission, safeguarding its reputation and its commitment to producing responsible, high-impact research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 2.281 is nearly identical to the national average of 2.241, indicating that its affiliation practices align closely with systemic patterns observed across Lebanon. This suggests that the university's approach to researcher affiliations is shaped by the same collaborative norms, funding structures, or academic mobility trends prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this alignment with a medium-risk national environment means the institution is equally exposed to the risk of these practices being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a dynamic that warrants ongoing monitoring to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 4.635, the institution shows a significant-level risk that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-level score of 0.447. This result indicates that the university is not just participating in a national vulnerability but is amplifying it, making it a critical outlier. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not about isolated errors; it is a powerful alert to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.526, a medium-risk signal that marks a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.186. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive to insular citation practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution may be validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence could 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 0.970, while in the same medium-risk category as the national average of 0.101, is significantly higher, indicating high exposure to this risk. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to channeling its research into outlets that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.777, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard, which stands at -0.505. Both scores fall within the low-risk category, but the university's lower value is a positive indicator of healthy scientific conduct. This suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the dilutive effects of author list inflation, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.

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

The institution exhibits notable resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.113, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.285. This demonstrates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership. This finding suggests that its excellence metrics result from a real and sustainable internal capacity, a significant strength in a context where reliance on external collaboration for impact is more common.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.826 is slightly higher than the national average of 1.633, placing it in a position of high exposure to this medium-level risk. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, volumes exceeding the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator points to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, 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

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average of -0.192. This is an exemplary finding, demonstrating a firm commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is subjected to independent, external peer review, reinforcing the credibility and competitiveness of its research on an international stage.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.058, the institution shows a medium-level risk, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.164). This suggests that the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices associated with data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.