| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.900 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.113 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.347 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.305 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.493 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.128 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.292 | 1.097 |
Al-Nahrain University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a moderate overall risk score (Z-score: 1.404) that reflects both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable governance in areas such as authorship transparency and editorial independence, with exceptionally low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Multiple Affiliations, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths are particularly notable when contrasted with national trends, suggesting robust internal policies. However, these positive aspects are severely undermined by a critical-level risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which is an outlier even within a nationally compromised context. This, combined with medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation and a dependency on external collaborations for impact, poses a direct threat to its mission of providing "high-quality programs" and achieving a "leading role in the field of creative researches." The university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data—notably in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (3rd in Iraq), Veterinary (4th in Iraq), and Computer Science (9th in Iraq)—provides a solid foundation of academic excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is imperative to leverage its governance strengths to urgently address the identified weaknesses, particularly by enhancing due diligence in publication channel selection and fostering a culture of independent, globally recognized impact.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.900, significantly lower than the national average of -0.386, Al-Nahrain University demonstrates an exemplary and stable approach to author affiliations. This very low incidence suggests that the institution's policies are clear and its researchers' affiliations are transparent, aligning perfectly with national standards for good practice. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the university is not engaging in strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a culture of straightforward and honest academic representation.
The university maintains a Z-score of -0.052 for retracted publications, a figure that indicates a low and controlled risk level. This performance is particularly noteworthy when compared to the national Z-score of 2.124, which signals a significant systemic challenge across the country. This stark contrast suggests that the institution's internal quality control mechanisms are functioning as an effective filter, protecting it from the broader national vulnerabilities. The university's ability to keep retractions to a minimum indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be prevalent elsewhere.
Al-Nahrain University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 2.113, a value that places it in a medium-risk category and slightly above the national average of 2.034. This indicates that the institution is more exposed than its national peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 7.347 in this indicator, a critically high value that significantly exceeds the already alarming national average of 5.771. This result constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in risk metrics within a highly compromised national environment. Such a high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and systemic failure in information literacy that must be addressed to prevent the continued waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.
The university's Z-score of -1.305 for hyper-authored output is exceptionally low, falling even below the national average of -1.116. This signals a complete operational silence in this risk area, reflecting highly responsible authorship practices. This strong performance indicates a total absence of signals related to author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. It suggests that authorship at the institution is granted transparently and legitimately, distinguishing its research culture from practices involving 'honorary' or political attributions.
With a Z-score of 0.493, the university shows a wider gap between its overall and leadership-driven impact compared to the national average of 0.242. This heightened exposure suggests a greater dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research, signaling a potential sustainability risk. The value indicates that the institution's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural, raising important questions about whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on building and showcasing its own core research strengths.
The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.128. While this indicates a low overall risk, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.319, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. These early signals, though not yet alarming, warrant careful review before they escalate. The presence of even a few authors with extreme publication volumes can challenge the perceived balance between quantity and quality. It is a prompt to ensure that institutional pressures do not inadvertently encourage dynamics like coercive authorship or metric-chasing at the expense of the integrity of the scientific record.
Al-Nahrain University shows a Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals, which is exceptionally low and stands in stark contrast to the national average of 1.373. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By not relying on its in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review. This commitment to external scrutiny strengthens the credibility of its research and enhances its global visibility, setting a standard of good governance.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.292. Although this falls within a medium-risk range, it is considerably lower than the national average of 1.097, indicating a differentiated and more effective management of publication practices. This suggests the university is successfully moderating the risk of 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining better control than its national peers, the institution demonstrates a greater commitment to publishing significant, coherent knowledge rather than prioritizing sheer volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
