Abu Dhabi University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Abu Dhabi University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.321. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation and hyper-authored output, alongside an exemplary very low rate of publication in its own journals, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and collaborative transparency. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to publication in discontinued journals, a notable dependency on external partners for impactful research, and a tendency towards redundant publications. These challenges should be contextualized within the university's outstanding thematic performance, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it at the forefront in the UAE for disciplines such as Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of delivering "transformative world-class education" and "impactful" research, it is crucial to address these integrity vulnerabilities. A focus on enhancing publication due diligence and fostering internal research leadership will ensure that the university's growing influence is built upon a foundation of sustainable, internally-driven excellence and unquestionable scientific rigor.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.972 is slightly lower than the national average of 1.157. This suggests that while operating within a national context where multiple affiliations are common, the university demonstrates a more moderate and controlled approach. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this differentiated management helps mitigate the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" more effectively than its national peers, indicating a healthier balance between collaboration and institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.296, significantly below the national average of 0.057, the institution demonstrates strong resilience against the systemic risks of retraction seen elsewhere in the country. This low rate suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective filters. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a rate well below the national standard points towards a robust integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that might lead to systemic failures prior to publication.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.759 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.199, indicating a prudent and rigorous approach to citation practices. This demonstrates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, actively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or insular dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.967 is notably higher than the national average of 0.432, signaling a high exposure to this particular risk. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to channeling its scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.738, which is lower than the national average of -0.474, the university exhibits a prudent profile in managing authorship. This suggests that the institution's processes are more rigorous than the national standard in this regard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', this low score indicates that outside of those contexts, the university effectively discourages author list inflation. This helps maintain individual accountability and transparency, ensuring a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.189 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.219, indicating a high exposure to dependency on external partners for impact. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is comparatively low—signals a potential sustainability risk. The high value suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 1.371 is almost identical to the national average of 1.351, indicating that its risk level reflects a systemic pattern shared at the national level. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator's value alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The alignment with the national trend suggests these dynamics may be influenced by shared evaluation policies or academic pressures prevalent throughout the country.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This integrity synchrony shows a shared commitment to avoiding the conflicts of interest that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. The very low rate confirms that the university's scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thus preventing academic endogamy, enhancing global visibility, and ensuring that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.488, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.194, the institution shows a high exposure to the risk of redundant publications. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to practices where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such 'salami slicing' not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.