| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.463 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.192 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.089 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.143 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.029 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.971 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.967 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.212 | -0.139 |
Daffodil International University presents a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its score of 0.896. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership, minimal reliance on institutional journals, and prudent management of authorship practices. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant-risk rate of multiple affiliations, alongside medium-risk signals in areas such as institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and hyperprolific authorship. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates notable national leadership in several key areas, including Arts and Humanities, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Psychology. While these thematic strengths align with the university's mission to achieve "international distinction," the identified integrity risks, especially those related to affiliation strategies and publication channel selection, could undermine this ambition. These practices may conflict with the goal of serving the nation with credible, high-quality research. To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its clear operational strengths to implement targeted governance reforms, ensuring its pursuit of global excellence is built upon an unshakeable foundation of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 3.463, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.589. This disparity suggests that the university is not only participating in but also intensifying a vulnerability already present in the national research system. This high rate of multiple affiliations represents a critical alert. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The current level is a significant outlier that amplifies national trends, demanding an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine scientific collaboration rather than a pursuit of inflated metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.192, the university demonstrates a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.666. This indicates a more effective management of research quality within a national context where this risk is more common. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The university's moderate score, being lower than the country's, suggests that its pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are functioning with greater efficacy than its national peers. This differentiated management allows the institution to moderate a risk that appears more prevalent in its environment, reflecting a commendable commitment to the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.089 is notably higher than the national average of 0.027, indicating a greater propensity for institutional self-citation compared to its peers. This suggests the institution is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. Nonetheless, disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The university's elevated score warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader, external scrutiny from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.143 for publications in discontinued journals, a rate significantly higher than the national average of 0.411. This indicates a high exposure to the reputational damage associated with publishing in low-quality or predatory outlets. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
The university's Z-score of -1.029 is below the national average of -0.864, indicating a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This suggests that the institution's authorship practices are more conservative than the national standard, effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation. The university's profile reflects a commitment to ensuring that authorship corresponds to meaningful contribution, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.971 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.147, which signals a risk of dependency. This result indicates that the university is effectively insulated from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A very wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. In contrast, this university demonstrates that its scientific impact is driven by research where it holds a leadership role. This reflects a high degree of scientific autonomy and structural capacity, suggesting that its excellence is endogenous and sustainable.
With a Z-score of 1.967, the university shows a greater sensitivity to the risks of hyperprolific authorship compared to the national average of -0.403. This moderate deviation from the national norm warrants a review of the factors driving high individual publication volumes. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268, even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.243, demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This indicates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, bypassing independent peer review. The university's operational silence on this indicator is a clear strength, showing that its scientific production competes on the global stage and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that might compromise competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.212 is lower than the national average of -0.139, reflecting a prudent management of its publication strategy. This suggests a more rigorous approach to defining a unit of publication than the national standard. The university's lower score indicates a focus on publishing significant, coherent bodies of work rather than prioritizing volume, thereby contributing more meaningfully to the scientific record and respecting the integrity of the research process.
