| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.858 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.456 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.108 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.205 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.364 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.099 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.018 | 1.097 |
The University of Al-Qadisiyah presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.540, the institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and output in its own journals, indicating robust internal controls in authorship and publication channel selection. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical weaknesses, particularly a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a high level of institutional self-citation, which directly challenge the university's mission to adhere to "international academic quality standards." These risks could undermine the credibility of its recognized thematic strengths, which, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, include leading national positions in Veterinary, Physics and Astronomy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. To fully align its practices with its mission of providing "distinguished" and enriching research, the university should leverage its proven governance capabilities to systematically address these high-risk areas, thereby ensuring its scientific output is both impactful and unimpeachably sound.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.858, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.386. This indicates that the university's management of researcher affiliations is more controlled than the national average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the university's lower rate suggests a well-managed and transparent approach that effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the university effectively acts as a filter against the critical risk levels observed nationally (Z-score of 2.124). This stark contrast suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are successfully mitigating the systemic issues present elsewhere in the country. The low rate of retractions is a positive signal of responsible supervision and a robust integrity culture, indicating that potential methodological flaws or errors are being addressed before they compromise the public scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 2.456 indicates a significant risk that accentuates the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score of 2.034). This disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice presents a high risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 8.108 is a global red flag, positioning it as a leader in this risk metric within a country already facing a critical situation (Z-score of 5.771). This extremely high value constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and enforce stricter publication policies to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -1.205 reflects a state of total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.116. This absence of risk signals demonstrates that authorship practices are transparent and accountable. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation, suggesting that credit is assigned appropriately and that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.364, the institution shows higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.242. This moderate but elevated gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external partners than is typical for its peers. This situation signals a potential sustainability risk, where a significant portion of its measured excellence may result from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. It invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research capabilities.
The university's Z-score of -1.099 demonstrates a low-profile consistency, as the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national environment (country Z-score of -0.319). This very low score indicates a commendable balance between quantity and quality in its researchers' output. There are no signs of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, suggesting that the institutional culture prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over purely metric-driven productivity.
The institution exhibits a pattern of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -0.268, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 1.373). This very low reliance on its own journals is a sign of strong governance, as it avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in an institution acting as both judge and party. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, the university sidesteps the risk of academic endogamy, enhances its global visibility, and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The university's Z-score of 2.018 indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average of 1.097. This elevated value serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
