| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.206 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.569 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.288 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.042 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.244 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.162 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.088 | -0.139 |
Green University of Bangladesh demonstrates a balanced overall integrity profile, with a global Z-score of -0.084 that indicates performance closely aligned with the international average. The institution exhibits notable strengths in its operational governance, showing significant resilience against national risk trends in areas such as retracted output and publication in discontinued journals. This suggests robust internal quality control mechanisms. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a tendency towards institutional self-citation and a dependency on external collaborations for impact, which are more pronounced than the national average. The most significant vulnerability lies in the rate of redundant output, indicating a potential pressure for quantitative productivity over substantive contribution. These findings should be contextualized within the university's strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in key areas like Computer Science, Energy, and Engineering. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks challenge the universal academic values of excellence and integrity. To fully capitalize on its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university develops targeted policies to mitigate these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring that its growing academic influence is built on a foundation of sustainable and transparent research practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.206, which is below the national average of 0.589. This indicates a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's more controlled rate suggests it is less exposed to "affiliation shopping" practices than its national peers, reflecting a more structured and transparent approach to academic partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.666. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks present in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. The university's low score is a positive signal of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, indicating that its pre-publication review processes act as a firewall against the vulnerabilities observed elsewhere in the national system.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.569, significantly higher than the national average of 0.027. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to these signals than its environment. While some self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, a trend that warrants a review of citation practices.
The university's Z-score of -0.288 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.411. This performance highlights the institution's resilience and suggests that its internal controls are mitigating a risk more prevalent at the country level. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's low rate indicates that its researchers are effectively avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.042, the institution displays a more prudent profile than the national standard, which stands at -0.864. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than its peers. A high Z-score in this area can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's very low score suggests a healthy and transparent approach to authorship, effectively avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.244, which is higher than the national average of 0.147. This indicates a higher exposure to dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than is typical for the country, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.162, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.403. This points to an incipient vulnerability, as the center shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's score, though not alarming, suggests a need to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, which could point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.243, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in a very low-risk area signifies maximum scientific security. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's extremely low rate indicates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.
With a Z-score of 2.088, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.139, which is in the low-risk range. This discrepancy indicates that the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value is an alert that such practices may be distorting the scientific record and prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge, a vulnerability that requires immediate strategic attention.
