| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.823 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.718 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.380 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.158 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.054 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.916 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.106 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.558 | -0.139 |
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University presents a profile of significant thematic leadership combined with specific, addressable vulnerabilities in its research integrity framework. With an overall integrity score of 0.240, the institution demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership and its prudent management of authorship and institutional publication channels. These strengths are foundational to its academic success, reflected in its excellent national rankings in key areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (1st), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (4th), Veterinary (4th), and Business, Management and Accounting (8th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is contrasted by medium-risk signals in areas like multiple affiliations, retractions, self-citation, and redundant output. These patterns, if unaddressed, could undermine the core tenets of its mission to pursue "innovation for sustainable development," as sustained excellence requires unimpeachable scientific rigor and external validation. By leveraging its demonstrated capacity for independent, high-impact research, the University is well-positioned to refine its governance mechanisms, mitigate these risks, and ensure its contributions to society are both innovative and built on a foundation of the highest scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.823, which is higher than the national average of 0.589. This indicates that although the risk level is moderate for both the institution and the country, the university shows a greater exposure to this dynamic than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate suggests a greater susceptibility to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This pattern warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions and maintain transparency.
With a Z-score of 0.718 compared to the national average of 0.666, the institution shows a slightly higher propensity for this risk indicator within a national context that already signals moderate concern. This suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be under more strain than those of its peers. A rate significantly higher than the global average, as seen here, alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It may indicate recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent systemic failures.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.380, markedly higher than the national average of 0.027. This reveals that the institution is significantly more exposed to this risk than its environment, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution demonstrates effective risk moderation in this area, with a Z-score of 0.158, which is substantially lower than the national average of 0.411. This suggests that the university has implemented differentiated management practices that successfully mitigate a risk that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, but the university's lower score indicates a more robust process for selecting dissemination channels. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and suggests a strong commitment to avoiding 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.054, which is even lower than the already low-risk national standard of -0.864. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national average. This strong performance suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. The data points to a culture where author lists are transparent and individual accountability is maintained, aligning with best practices in research integrity.
The university shows a remarkable preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -0.916 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.147. This significant divergence indicates that the institution does not replicate the dependency on external collaboration for impact seen elsewhere in its environment. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk where prestige is exogenous, but this institution's negative gap demonstrates the opposite: its scientific prestige is the result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a sign of a healthy, sustainable, and autonomous research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.106, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.403, signaling an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is minimal, this subtle difference suggests that the university is beginning to show signals that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a preemptive alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality and to guard against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution demonstrates integrity synchrony with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is in total alignment with the country's very low-risk average of -0.243. This indicates a shared commitment to maximum scientific security in this domain. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production does not bypass independent external peer review. This practice mitigates conflicts of interest, enhances global visibility, and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.558 (medium risk) compared to the country's score of -0.139 (low risk). This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While citing previous work is necessary, the university's score alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic, which is not prevalent at the national level, warrants internal review to ensure that research outputs consistently represent significant new knowledge and do not overburden the scientific review system.
