A’Sharqiyah University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

A’Sharqiyah University (ASU) demonstrates a robust overall profile in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.136 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, suggesting strong internal quality controls and a culture that prioritizes substantive research over metric inflation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities present a potential conflict with its mission to advance knowledge and contribute to regional development through applied research. ASU's academic excellence is evident in its strong national rankings in key thematic areas, including its top position in Oman for Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and top-five rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Computer Science, and Engineering, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic mission, ASU is encouraged to focus on enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection and fostering internal research capacity to ensure its growing prestige is both sustainable and self-generated.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.134, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.062. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where ASU's internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation practices that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the country's moderate risk level points to a broader trend that could include strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. ASU’s lower score indicates that its policies or researcher practices are more contained, successfully avoiding the dynamics of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with appropriate justification.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which registers a moderate-risk score of 0.455. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly higher than average, as seen nationally, often points to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. ASU's exceptionally low score is a strong positive indicator, suggesting that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and research integrity are robust and effective, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or error that appears to be a vulnerability within the broader national system.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.563 is lower than the national average of -0.371, reflecting a prudent profile in its citation practices. This indicates that ASU manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, even within a low-risk context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. ASU’s lower-than-average score suggests a healthy reliance on external validation and global community recognition, effectively avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating a commitment to broader scientific dialogue.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.432, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.812. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. ASU's elevated score warns that a significant portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to strengthen information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.941, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.759. In a context where both the institution and the country show low risk, ASU’s even lower score indicates that it manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', a high score outside these fields can indicate author list inflation. ASU’s data suggests its researchers are effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 0.604 is higher than the national average of 0.410, signaling a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. This suggests that ASU is more prone than its national peers to this particular vulnerability. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. ASU's score suggests its scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than is typical for the country, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard, which itself sits at a low-risk -0.246. The complete absence of risk signals at ASU aligns perfectly with a healthy national environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing'. ASU's score confirms that its research culture successfully avoids these dynamics, showing no signs of imbalances between quantity and quality and instead fostering an environment where authorship is tied to genuine participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is present at the national level (country score of 0.977). This indicates that ASU does not replicate the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as the institution acts as both judge and party. ASU's very low score is a strong positive signal, showing that it avoids using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication, instead prioritizing independent external peer review and ensuring its research competes for validation on a global stage.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution records a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a near-total absence of this risk and showing low-profile consistency with the national standard (country score of -0.066). The data suggests that ASU’s practices are well-aligned with a national environment that already shows minimal signs of this issue. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' points to the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. ASU's very low score demonstrates a clear focus on publishing significant, coherent studies, thereby prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the distortion of its scientific record for metric-based gains.