| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.265 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.444 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.123 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.428 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.132 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.699 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.000 | -0.139 |
BRAC University demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.187. The institution exhibits remarkable strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, indicating a strong culture of external validation and a focus on substantive research contributions. Furthermore, the university shows significant resilience, effectively mitigating national risk trends in Retracted Output and publications in Discontinued Journals. The primary area for strategic attention is the notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, which suggests a dependency on external collaborations for scientific prestige. These findings are contextualized by the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including top-tier SCImago Institutions Rankings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (2nd), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (2nd), and Arts and Humanities (3rd). While the identified dependency risk could challenge the long-term sustainability of its mission to "foster knowledge creation," the university's overall commitment to ethical practices strongly aligns with its goal of "upholding human values." To fully realize its mission, a strategic focus on cultivating intellectual leadership in its areas of strength will ensure that its recognized excellence becomes structurally embedded and sustainable.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.265, which is notably more controlled than the national average of 0.589. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. BRAC University's more contained score indicates effective oversight of affiliation practices, ensuring they reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation within a national context of higher exposure.
With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.666. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. BRAC University's favorable score indicates that its integrity culture and supervision processes are robust, acting as an effective safeguard against recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, a vulnerability more pronounced at the national level.
The institution's Z-score of -1.444 is exceptionally low, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which stands at a medium-risk score of 0.027. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Disproportionately high rates of self-citation can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where an institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. BRAC University's near-zero incidence of this practice demonstrates a profound commitment to seeking external validation and global community recognition, effectively avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation that can be a concern elsewhere in the national system.
The institution's Z-score of -0.123 (low risk) is significantly healthier than the national average of 0.411 (medium risk), highlighting its institutional resilience. This performance suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. BRAC University's low score indicates that its researchers are successfully navigating the publishing landscape, avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thereby protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.428 places it in the low-risk category, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.864. This points to an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows signals that warrant review before they escalate, even within a low-risk context. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a rising rate outside these fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's score, while not alarming, suggests a need for vigilance to ensure that authorship practices continue to reflect genuine collaboration rather than 'honorary' attributions.
With a Z-score of 2.132, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, a level significantly greater than the national average of 0.147. This indicates that the university is more prone to this specific alert signal than its environment. A very wide positive gap, as seen here, signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This value invites critical reflection on whether the university's strong excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term, sustainable knowledge creation.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.699, indicating a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.403. Both scores are in the low-risk category, but the university's lower value is commendable. 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. BRAC University's more conservative score suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively managing processes to prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.243, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security on this front. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The near-complete absence of this practice at both the institutional and national levels confirms a shared commitment to global visibility and standard competitive validation for scientific output.
With a Z-score of -1.000, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard of -0.139. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an operational standard that aligns with, and exceeds, the national norm. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' BRAC University's score indicates an exemplary commitment to publishing complete and significant new knowledge, avoiding practices that distort scientific evidence and prioritize volume over substance.
