| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.211 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
16.788 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.818 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.055 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.017 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.249 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.753 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.680 | 0.966 |
Universite Akli Mohand Oulhadj, Bouira presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional strength alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall score of 5.178, the institution demonstrates robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership, as evidenced by a very low risk in the gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research. Furthermore, it shows excellent governance in avoiding academic endogamy, with a minimal rate of publication in institutional journals. However, this solid foundation is severely compromised by a significant-risk Z-score in retracted publications, which points to potential systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. This is compounded by a high exposure to risks associated with multiple affiliations and redundant publications ('salami slicing'), where the university's rates exceed national averages. The institution's thematic strengths, particularly its high national rankings in Environmental Science (2nd in Algeria), Energy (11th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (15th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a strong platform for academic excellence. However, the detected integrity risks, especially the high rate of retractions, directly challenge any institutional mission centered on excellence and social responsibility, as they undermine the reliability of its scientific contributions. A strategic focus on reinforcing quality assurance mechanisms and promoting responsible publication practices is essential to protect its reputation and ensure its thematic strengths translate into sustainable, high-integrity impact.
The institution registers a Z-score of 2.211, notably higher than the national average of 0.936. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. This heightened vulnerability warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and contribution, rather than being used solely for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of 16.788, the institution displays a critical alert level that starkly contrasts with the national medium-risk average of 0.771. This finding suggests a significant risk accentuation, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the global average points to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score of 0.818 is below the national average of 0.909, both within the medium-risk category. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the center successfully moderates risks that appear more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's ability to keep this rate below the national trend indicates a healthier balance, reducing the danger of falling into scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This suggests that the institution's academic influence is less likely to be oversized by internal dynamics and is more reliant on broader community recognition than its national peers.
The institution demonstrates effective risk management with a Z-score of 0.055, significantly lower than the national average of 0.157. This is a clear case of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that is more prevalent in its environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution shows a greater capacity to avoid channeling its scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting itself from the reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.017, the institution's risk level is low, yet slightly higher than the national average of -1.105. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, where the center shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. In fields outside of 'Big Science', extensive author lists can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. While the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that a proactive review of authorship guidelines could be beneficial to ensure all listed authors meet contribution criteria and to prevent the normalization of 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.249, a sign of very low risk that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.081. This demonstrates a preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capacity. The university's negative score is a strong indicator of sustainability and intellectual autonomy, suggesting that its scientific excellence results from real internal capacity and that it exercises clear leadership in its collaborations.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.753, which, while in the low-risk category, represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national baseline of -0.967. This indicates the emergence of risk signals at the institution that are not apparent in the rest of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. Although the signal is weak, it warrants monitoring to ensure that institutional culture continues to prioritize the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, both at a very low-risk level. This perfect alignment signifies integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The complete absence of this risk signal indicates that the institution relies on external, competitive validation for its research, fostering global visibility and upholding rigorous quality standards in line with the national context.
The institution's Z-score of 1.680 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.966, indicating high exposure to this risk. This suggests the center is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior than its environment average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value alerts to a potential trend that could distort the scientific evidence and overburden the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
