| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.836 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.671 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.358 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.058 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.986 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.717 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.346 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.652 | 0.188 |
Qassim University demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.770, reflecting a robust foundation with clear areas of scientific integrity excellence alongside specific, manageable vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its responsible authorship practices, evidenced by a low rate of hyper-authored output, and its strong commitment to external validation, shown by a very low rate of publication in institutional journals. Furthermore, the university exhibits remarkable resilience in building its own intellectual leadership, avoiding the dependency on external collaborators for impact that is more common at the national level. These strengths are complemented by notable academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing the university in the top tier nationally in fields such as Veterinary (3rd), Dentistry (6th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (6th), and Arts and Humanities (7th). However, to fully align with its mission of providing "advanced and accredited university education" and contributing to a "knowledge economy," attention must be directed toward a cluster of medium-risk indicators—including higher-than-average rates of institutional self-citation, redundant output, and publication in discontinued journals. These practices, if left unaddressed, could undermine the perceived quality and external validation of its research, creating a potential disconnect with its goal of achieving national and international partnership and recognition. By leveraging its foundational strengths in governance and intellectual independence, Qassim University is well-positioned to refine its publication strategies, thereby enhancing its scientific credibility and fully realizing its strategic vision.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.836, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.704. This comparison indicates that the university is more exposed to the dynamics associated with this indicator than its national peers. This heightened exposure suggests a pattern of multiple affiliations that, while often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, warrants a closer look. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and this elevated score points to a need for internal review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than mere credit acquisition.
With a Z-score of 0.671, the institution demonstrates relative containment of retraction risk, performing with more order than the national average, which stands at a significant level with a score of 1.274. This suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are more effective than the national standard, successfully mitigating a critical systemic risk. However, a medium-level signal still exists. Retractions are complex events, and a rate above the baseline suggests that pre-publication quality controls may occasionally fail. This finding indicates that while the institution is a firewall against the country's more severe issues, continuous reinforcement of methodological rigor and integrity culture is necessary to prevent recurring malpractice or unintentional errors.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.358, a figure that, while moderate, is significantly higher than the national average of 0.060. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more prone to this risk behavior than its peers, pointing to a potential 'echo chamber' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. Nevertheless, this elevated rate warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a factor to consider for its internationalization goals.
The institution's Z-score of 2.058 is considerably higher than the national average of 1.132, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a high proportion constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals that ultimately detract from the institution's credibility.
Qassim University demonstrates a prudent profile in its authorship practices, with a Z-score of -0.986, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.763. This low score is a positive signal, indicating that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. By maintaining control over this indicator, the university promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorships that can dilute the meaning of intellectual contribution. This reflects a healthy research culture that values genuine participation over inflated metrics.
The institution shows significant resilience and intellectual independence, with a Z-score of -0.717, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.491, which signals a medium risk. This result indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic national risk of impact dependency. A low score here is a powerful indicator of sustainability, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity for leadership. This demonstrates that its excellence metrics are not merely the result of strategic positioning in collaborations but are rooted in genuine intellectual ownership and direction.
The university exhibits differentiated management of author productivity, with a Z-score of 0.346, well below the national average of 2.211. This shows that the institution successfully moderates the risks associated with hyperprolificacy that appear more common in the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's controlled score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
In this indicator, the institution's performance is exemplary, showing total operational silence with a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.234. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to a low-risk environment, demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university eliminates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research is validated against global competitive standards. This practice significantly enhances the credibility and international visibility of its scientific output, aligning perfectly with goals of national and international partnership.
The university's Z-score of 0.652 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.188, indicating a high exposure to this practice. This suggests a greater tendency within the institution to fragment coherent studies into minimal publishable units, a practice known as 'salami slicing,' often used to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This high value serves as an alert, as such a practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence by presenting incremental findings as separate, novel contributions. Addressing this requires a cultural shift toward prioritizing significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
