| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.920 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.522 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.139 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.047 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.236 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.955 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.074 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.139 |
Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.265, which indicates a performance largely aligned with expected standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining a very low rate of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, redundant publications, and output in its own journals, signaling a strong culture of quality control and ethical authorship. These positive indicators are further reinforced by a minimal gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its internally-led projects, underscoring true intellectual leadership. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is higher than the national average, and an incipient vulnerability regarding hyperprolific authors. These results are contextualized by the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including top-tier rankings in Environmental Science, Chemistry, and Physics and Astronomy, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, while not critical, present a potential conflict with the university's mission to foster "world-class education" and professionals with strong "ethical values." Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that all operational practices fully support its commitment to excellence and sustainable socio-economic development. A proactive review of affiliation and productivity policies will help solidify its position as a national leader in both research output and scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.920, while the national average is 0.589. This indicates that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers, reflecting a pattern that is already a moderate concern across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a need for closer examination. The data points to a potential strategic use of affiliations to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the university's unique brand and misrepresent its core research contributions. A review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they align with collaborative substance rather than metric optimization.
With a Z-score of -0.522, the institution demonstrates an outstandingly low incidence of retractions, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.666, which signals a medium level of risk. This contrast suggests the university has successfully isolated itself from the systemic vulnerabilities affecting other institutions in the country. This very low rate is a testament to the effectiveness of its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication. Rather than correcting errors post-publication, the institution appears to prevent them, reflecting a mature and responsible integrity culture that effectively safeguards its scientific record from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.139, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk average of 0.027. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risk of endogamy prevalent in the national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This prudent approach ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community, reinforcing the idea that its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.047, a medium-risk value that is, however, significantly lower than the national average of 0.411. This suggests a differentiated management approach where, despite operating in an environment with a shared risk, the university exercises greater caution in its choice of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence. While the risk is not eliminated, the institution's moderation of this trend indicates a better-than-average ability to avoid channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting it from the most severe reputational damage associated with 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.236, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship, a figure that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.864. This alignment with, and improvement upon, the national standard points to a healthy and transparent authorship culture. The data confirms that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the institution effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This commitment to clear accountability ensures that credit is assigned appropriately, reinforcing the integrity of individual contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.955 is in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.147. This result indicates a commendable preventive isolation from a national trend where institutional prestige may be overly dependent on external partners. The minimal gap at the university suggests that its scientific excellence is structural and generated by its own internal capacity. This is a strong indicator of sustainability, demonstrating that the institution exercises genuine intellectual leadership in its collaborations rather than merely gaining impact by association, thereby building a solid foundation for long-term research autonomy and prestige.
The institution's Z-score of -0.074, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.403, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk level is low for both the center and the country, the university shows slightly more activity in this area, warranting a review before it escalates. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This subtle upward trend serves as an early warning to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and to ensure that institutional pressures are not inadvertently encouraging practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is nearly identical to the country's average of -0.243, the institution demonstrates perfect synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. Both scores are in the very low-risk category, indicating a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on its own journals for publication, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice prevents potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 places it in the very low-risk category, a significantly better performance than the national low-risk average of -0.139. This demonstrates a consistent and robust policy against data fragmentation, aligning with the national standard but executing it with greater rigor. The near-absence of this indicator suggests that the university's researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through 'salami slicing.' This ethical stance not only strengthens the integrity of the scientific record but also shows respect for the academic review system by focusing on substance over volume.
