| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.302 | 2.187 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.145 | 0.849 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.160 | 0.822 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.458 | 0.680 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.639 | -0.618 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.475 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.150 | 0.153 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.130 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.376 | 0.214 |
Suez Canal University presents a balanced integrity profile, characterized by robust internal governance and specific external-facing vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.418, the institution demonstrates commendable control over practices such as output in institutional journals, self-citation, and redundant publication, suggesting a strong foundational culture of scientific rigor. Key thematic strengths, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in areas like Dentistry (ranked 5th in Egypt), Psychology (8th), and Veterinary (11th), showcasing pockets of high-impact research. However, this performance is contrasted by a significant risk in the rate of multiple affiliations and moderate risks related to publication in discontinued journals and a dependency on external partners for impact. These vulnerabilities could challenge the university's mission to foster "competition" and "values" in a "globalization era," as perceived excellence might appear inflated or contingent rather than self-sustained. To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic vision, the university is advised to leverage its strong internal controls to critically review and strengthen its policies on external collaborations and publication strategies, ensuring its growing reputation is built on a foundation of verifiable and independent leadership.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 3.302, a significant value that is notably higher than the national average of 2.187. This suggests that the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system, moving from a medium to a significant risk level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that affiliations reflect substantive collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," a practice which could ultimately undermine the perceived value of the institution's research contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.145, the university demonstrates effective risk management in an area where the national context shows a higher propensity for risk (country score: 0.849). This indicates that the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common among its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly lower than the national average suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be functioning effectively, thereby safeguarding its scientific record and institutional reputation from the vulnerabilities associated with recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
Suez Canal University displays notable resilience against a risk that is moderately prevalent at the national level. The institution's low Z-score of -0.160, compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.822, indicates that its control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the trend of excessive self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By avoiding disproportionately high rates, the university prevents the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' and the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.458 is lower than the national average of 0.680, suggesting a more cautious approach to journal selection within a national environment where this is a shared concern. This reflects a differentiated management strategy that helps moderate a common risk. However, the medium risk level still constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of scientific production channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's activity in this area is consistent with national patterns, with its Z-score of -0.639 closely mirroring the country's score of -0.618. This alignment indicates that the institution's risk level is as expected for its context and size. The low scores for both the university and the country suggest that practices such as author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships are not a systemic concern, reflecting a healthy standard of transparency and accountability in the attribution of research credit.
The university displays a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.475 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.159. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.150 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.153, indicating that its performance on this metric reflects a systemic pattern shared at the national level. The moderate risk level for both suggests that researchers may be responding to shared evaluation pressures. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution, and this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
In this domain, the university demonstrates an exemplary standard of integrity. Its Z-score of -0.268 indicates a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.130. This signifies a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, the university enhances its global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive channels, rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The institution exhibits strong resilience in an area where the national context shows moderate risk. Its low Z-score of -0.376 stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.214, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively preventing the practice of data fragmentation. A low rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications alerts to a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity. This approach strengthens the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system with minimally publishable units.
