| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.445 | 2.983 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.155 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.254 | -0.773 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.324 | 1.338 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.685 | -0.332 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.883 | 1.276 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.123 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.394 | -0.475 |
Sudan University for Science and Technology (SUST) demonstrates a complex profile, balancing national leadership in key research areas with significant vulnerabilities in scientific integrity. With an overall score of 0.504, the institution's performance is marked by a clear dichotomy: while it shows exceptional control over risks related to hyperprolific authorship and the use of institutional journals, it faces critical challenges in the areas of multiple affiliations, retracted output, and redundant publications. This profile is set against a backdrop of clear thematic strengths, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing SUST as the top institution in Sudan for Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. However, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the university's mission to produce "original scientific research" and cultivate scientists of "high international calibre and reputation." Practices that suggest a focus on metric inflation over substantive contribution, such as excessive multiple affiliations or data fragmentation, undermine the credibility and long-term impact of its scientific output. To fully leverage its thematic leadership, SUST must prioritize the reinforcement of its internal governance and quality control mechanisms, ensuring its operational practices align with its stated ambition for excellence and community service.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.445, which is notably higher than the already critical national average of 2.983. This finding positions the university as a global red flag, indicating that it not only operates within a high-risk national context but actively leads and amplifies this problematic trend. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic pattern of "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit and visibility. This practice is a significant vulnerability, as it suggests that the institution's perceived collaborative footprint may be oversized by administrative tactics rather than genuine scientific partnerships, compromising the transparency of its research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of 0.155, the institution shows a moderate risk level that deviates significantly from the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.094). This discrepancy suggests that the university is more susceptible to the factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that stands out so clearly from the national baseline points to a potential systemic weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Rather than isolated incidents of error correction, this signal warns that the institution's integrity culture may have vulnerabilities, allowing for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.254 indicates a low risk level, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.773. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants preventive attention. A certain degree of self-citation is expected as it reflects the progression of established research lines. However, the fact that the university's signal is more pronounced than the national standard, even within a low-risk band, suggests a need for monitoring. Proactive review is recommended to ensure this trend does not escalate into the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' or a pattern of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's influence is validated by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global academic community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.324 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.338, both falling within the medium-risk category. This alignment indicates that the university's behavior reflects a systemic, nationwide pattern rather than an isolated institutional issue. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The shared medium-risk level suggests a widespread challenge in information literacy across the country, where a significant portion of scientific output is channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes both the institution and the national research system to severe reputational risks and highlights an urgent, collective need to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.685, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, maintaining a lower risk level than the national average of -0.332. This indicates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the typical standard in its environment. By effectively controlling for hyper-authorship outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the institution successfully mitigates the risks of author list inflation. This prudent approach helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in its publications, clearly distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 0.883, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably lower than the national average of 1.276. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university moderates a risk that appears more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap signals a dependency on external partners for scientific impact, suggesting that prestige is often exogenous rather than built on internal capacity. By maintaining a smaller gap than its national peers, the institution demonstrates a more balanced and sustainable research model. It reflects a healthier relationship between the impact gained from collaborations and the impact generated by research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership, pointing toward a more robust internal scientific foundation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator, falling even below the very low-risk national average of -1.123. This complete absence of risk signals is an indicator of exceptional health in its research culture. It demonstrates a strong institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the pressures that can lead to extreme individual publication volumes. This result confirms that the university is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This alignment in a very low-risk area shows a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest by making the institution both judge and party, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice is fundamental for achieving genuine global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.394 places it at a medium-risk level, creating a monitoring alert as this is highly unusual for the national standard, where the average is a very low -0.475. This stark contrast suggests that the practice of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' is a specific institutional issue rather than a widespread national trend. Such a high value warns that a significant number of publications may be artificially inflating productivity by dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and requiring an urgent internal review of its causes.
