| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.208 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
7.894 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.042 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.181 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.307 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.297 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.148 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.796 | -0.390 |
Ilam University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 2.002 that signals a need for targeted strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength and control across a majority of integrity indicators, including very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and dependency on institutional journals. This solid foundation, however, is significantly compromised by two critical vulnerabilities: a medium-risk level of institutional self-citation and, most alarmingly, a significant-risk rate of retracted output that far exceeds the national average. Thematically, the university shows notable national standing in several key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Chemistry, Veterinary, Engineering, and Physics and Astronomy. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the high rate of retractions poses a direct threat to any mission centered on academic excellence, quality, and social responsibility. This critical issue undermines the credibility of its research and could tarnish the reputation of its strongest academic fields. The university is therefore advised to leverage its many areas of procedural strength to implement a rigorous strategy focused on enhancing pre-publication quality control and fostering broader external validation to address these specific, yet severe, risks.
With a Z-score of -1.208, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.615. This result indicates a clear and consistent approach to authorship and institutional credit attribution. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with national standards of good practice, suggesting that the institution effectively avoids the strategic inflation of credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby ensuring transparency in its collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score of 7.894 for retracted output represents a critical alert, dramatically accentuating a vulnerability that is already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.777). This severe discrepancy suggests that the institution is not merely reflecting a national trend but is an outlier with systemic issues. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the global average points towards a potential failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This indicator warns that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be compromising the institution's integrity culture, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The university exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm in its self-citation practices, with a Z-score of 2.042 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.262. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural in developing established research lines, this elevated rate signals a potential "echo chamber" where work may be validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence could be perceived as being oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
Demonstrating notable institutional resilience, the university maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.181 for publications in discontinued journals, effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.094). This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher training are successful. By exercising strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, the institution avoids the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing practices, acting as a filter against a wider environmental vulnerability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.307 indicates a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, a profile that is consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.952. This absence of risk signals points to well-managed and transparent authorship practices. It suggests the university successfully avoids the risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability, and effectively distinguishes its legitimate large-scale collaborations from questionable "honorary" or political authorship practices.
Ilam University displays a commendable level of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed at the national level. Its very low Z-score of -1.297 stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.445, indicating that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. This healthy metric suggests that its research impact results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and structurally sound model where excellence is generated from within rather than being imported through collaborations.
With a Z-score of -1.148, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is very low, aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.247). This indicates a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a low risk of authorship being assigned without real participation or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, fostering a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued.
The university effectively isolates itself from the risks of academic endogamy, a vulnerability more pronounced within the national system. Its very low Z-score of -0.268, compared to the country's medium-risk score of 1.432, shows that it does not rely excessively on its own journals for dissemination. This practice ensures that its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting conflicts of interest, enhancing global visibility, and preventing the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.796 reflects a very low rate of redundant publications, a strong performance consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.390). This result indicates that the university's research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication counts. The low risk of "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units—shows respect for the scientific evidence base and the integrity of the peer review system.
