| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.903 | 2.187 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | 0.849 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.421 | 0.822 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.983 | 0.680 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.904 | -0.618 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.199 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.405 | 0.153 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.130 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.635 | 0.214 |
Qena University presents a profile of notable integrity and resilience, marked by an overall score of 0.271. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over key research practices, showing very low to low risk in areas such as retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and the use of institutional journals, often performing significantly better than the national average. These strengths indicate a robust internal culture of scientific rigor. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by two primary vulnerabilities: a significant risk associated with the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. The university's academic strengths are clearly reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds prominent national positions in key disciplines, including:
These achievements align with the university's mission to support scientific research that meets "regional and international criteria." However, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals, could undermine this mission by creating a perception of inflated credit and compromising the quality of dissemination channels. To fully realize its vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its demonstrated strengths in research governance to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its operational practices are in complete harmony with its commitment to excellence and community service.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.903, a value significantly above the national average of 2.187. This comparison indicates that the university is not merely participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability already present in the Egyptian system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of strategic partnerships, the institution's high rate suggests a potential over-reliance on this practice. This level of activity heightens the risk of "affiliation shopping" or strategic maneuvers designed to inflate institutional credit rather than reflect genuine, substantive collaboration, demanding a review of partnership and affiliation policies to ensure they align with academic integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution demonstrates strong performance, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.849, which signals a medium risk. This differential suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the country. A high rate of retractions can indicate a failure in pre-publication quality control, but the university's low score points to a robust integrity culture and effective methodological supervision. This performance is a clear indicator of responsible research oversight that prevents recurring malpractice and reinforces the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.421 is notably lower than the national average of 0.822, although both fall within a medium-risk context. This suggests a capacity for differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can create 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through internal validation. By maintaining a lower rate than its national peers, the institution demonstrates a healthier balance, suggesting its academic influence is less reliant on endogamous dynamics and more open to external scrutiny and global community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 0.983 is higher than the national average of 0.680, indicating a high level of exposure to this particular risk. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national counterparts to channeling its research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be directed toward media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.904, which is even lower than the national average of -0.618, reflecting a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This performance indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's very low score suggests its authorship practices are well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' attributions, thereby reinforcing transparency and individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.199 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.159, indicating a state of normality for its context. This low-risk score suggests a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. The balanced score here indicates that the university's excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capacity and that its collaborative impact is well-matched with the impact of the research it leads, pointing to a structurally sound and autonomous scientific agenda.
With a Z-score of -0.405, the institution shows a low-risk profile, which is particularly noteworthy when compared to the national average of 0.153, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal controls appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. The institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, even when compared to the already low national average of -0.130. This signals a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, with an absence of warning signs that is even more pronounced than the national norm. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's near-zero reliance on such channels demonstrates a strong commitment to global validation and competitive, external evaluation, ensuring its research is exposed to the highest standards of international scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.635 places it in the very low-risk category, a position of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average of 0.214 indicates a medium risk. This stark difference shows the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to inflate output. The institution's excellent score suggests its research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby protecting the integrity of scientific evidence and the efficiency of the peer-review system.
