| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.891 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.054 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.029 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.172 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.341 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.081 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.041 | 0.188 |
Effat University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a commendable overall score of 1.325 that reflects both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas that signal a robust internal culture of accountability, such as a very low rate of hyper-authored output, a near-zero reliance on institutional journals, and an effective filtering of retracted publications compared to the national context. These strengths are foundational. However, they are contrasted by significant risks in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, most critically, an extremely high Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which suggest systemic issues in strategic decision-making regarding collaborations and publication venues. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are concentrated in areas like Computer Science, Psychology, Economics, and Business, Management and Accounting. These high-risk indicators directly challenge the university's mission to prepare leaders of "international quality" and achieve "valuable societal impact," as they can undermine the credibility and global recognition of its research. To fully align its practices with its mission, Effat University should leverage its clear internal strengths to conduct a strategic review of its affiliation and publication policies, ensuring that its pursuit of academic excellence is built upon an unshakeable foundation of scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.891 in this indicator, a value that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.704. This significant deviation suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, such a disproportionately high rate constitutes a critical alert. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” practices that could compromise the transparency and fairness of academic attribution. An internal review is recommended to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and verifiable collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates an outstandingly low rate of retracted publications, particularly when contrasted with the country's significant-risk average of 1.274. This result indicates that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are not only effective but also serve as a protective filter against the systemic risks prevalent at the national level. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, this institution's very low rate strongly suggests that its pre-publication review processes are robust and its integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that leads to a high volume of retractions elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.054, which is nearly identical to the national average of 0.060. This alignment indicates that the university's behavior reflects a systemic pattern shared across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and shows the progression of established research lines. However, this shared medium-risk profile warns of a potential tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' on a national scale. For the institution, it serves as a reminder to actively foster external validation and international collaboration to mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensure its academic influence is recognized by the global community, not just its internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 5.029 for publications in discontinued journals is a critical red flag, drastically exceeding the country's medium-risk average of 1.132. This extreme value indicates a severe and systemic deficiency in the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks, as a significant portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. It suggests an urgent and immediate need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidance for researchers to avoid wasting intellectual and financial resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution demonstrates exemplary practice with a Z-score of -1.172, indicating a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, which is well below the country's low-risk average of -0.763. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for responsible conduct. This performance suggests a culture where authorship is managed with integrity, effectively avoiding the inflation of author lists. It reflects a commitment to transparency and individual accountability, ensuring that authorship credit is awarded appropriately and not diluted by 'honorary' or political practices.
With a Z-score of -0.341, the institution shows remarkable institutional resilience, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.491. This result indicates that the university is successfully mitigating the national trend of relying on external partners for impact. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent and exogenous but is structurally sound, built upon real internal capacity. This is a strong indicator of sustainability, demonstrating that the university's excellence metrics are a direct result of research where it exercises intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 2.081 is situated within a medium-risk context, but it is notably lower than the national average of 2.211. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university is more effectively moderating the risks associated with extreme individual productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, a medium-risk level still warrants attention. It serves as a prompt to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and to verify that high publication volumes do not conceal underlying issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a near-total operational silence in this area, performing even better than the country's already very low-risk average of -0.234. This is an indicator of exceptional integrity. By avoiding reliance on its own journals, the university eliminates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production bypasses any risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review strengthens the credibility of its research, enhances its global visibility, and demonstrates a clear prioritization of competitive validation over internal 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution demonstrates effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.041 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.188. This indicates a differentiated and more rigorous approach to publication ethics compared to its peers. While citing previous work is essential, a low score in this indicator suggests the institution actively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-based gains.
