Jazan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jazan University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.632 reflecting a combination of commendable strengths and areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution shows notable resilience against national trends in institutional self-citation and maintains exemplary control over publishing in its own journals, indicating strong internal governance in these domains. However, significant risks are present, particularly concerning the rate of retracted output and a dependency on external partners for research impact. The University's thematic strengths, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are particularly prominent in Dentistry (ranked 4th in Saudi Arabia), Arts and Humanities (9th), and Psychology (9th). These areas of excellence are foundational to its mission to "teach, research and innovate to contribute towards building a vibrant society." However, integrity risks such as high retraction rates and publishing in discontinued journals directly challenge the credibility of its research and innovation, potentially undermining its societal contributions. To fully align its operational practices with its mission, it is recommended that the University focuses on strengthening pre-publication quality control and enhancing information literacy regarding high-quality dissemination channels, thereby ensuring its research excellence is both impactful and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 0.163, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.704. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. By maintaining a lower rate than its national peers, Jazan University demonstrates a more controlled and potentially more transparent approach to collaborative crediting, reducing the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring clearer accountability in its research output.

Rate of Retracted Output

Jazan University presents a Z-score of 1.019 in this indicator, which, while significant, is below the national average of 1.274. This suggests that although the institution is operating within a national context facing critical challenges in publication integrity, it demonstrates comparatively more control over these risks. A high rate of retractions is a serious alert, as it suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its research reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of -0.529 is notably lower than the national average of 0.060, indicating a strong performance in this area. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as the University's practices appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. By maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, ensuring its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.168, the University's rate of publication in discontinued journals is nearly identical to the national average of 1.132. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, suggesting that the institution's practices reflect shared challenges or a lack of awareness at a national level regarding the selection of dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.672 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.763, both of which are in the low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the University shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate, even while remaining within a normal range. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. This signal, though minor, serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and are based on meaningful contribution rather than honorary or political considerations.

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

The University's Z-score of 1.743 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.491, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap, where the institution's overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research it leads, signals a potential risk to sustainability. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where Jazan University does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, highlighting a need to foster more home-grown, high-impact research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

Jazan University shows a Z-score of 0.699 in this indicator, which is significantly lower than the national average of 2.211. This reflects a differentiated management strategy, where the institution effectively moderates the risks associated with extreme publication volumes that are more prevalent in the country. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's more controlled rate mitigates the risks of coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby better balancing the drive for quantity with the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.234, both at a very low-risk level. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. In-house journals can present conflicts of interest, but by minimizing reliance on them, the institution avoids the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing a culture of transparency.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.135, the University's rate of redundant output is lower than the national average of 0.188. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution is more effective than its national peers at moderating the practice of data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator typically alerts to 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a lower rate, Jazan University demonstrates a stronger commitment to publishing significant, coherent new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, which upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base.