| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.266 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.071 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.915 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.007 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.271 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.354 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.668 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.484 | 1.097 |
The University of Mosul presents a dichotomous scientific integrity profile, characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall risk score of 1.591, the institution demonstrates remarkable strength in managing authorship practices, maintaining intellectual leadership, and avoiding conflicts of interest in institutional publishing, often outperforming national averages. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its research enterprise. The University's academic excellence is evident in its high national rankings in key thematic areas, including Veterinary (2nd), Dentistry (3rd), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (3rd), and Arts and Humanities (4th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is contrasted by critical risks in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and a high rate of retractions. These challenges directly threaten the mission of "achieving global leadership" and "excellence," as they suggest patterns of insularity and potential compromises in quality control that can undermine international credibility. To fully align its operational practices with its ambitious vision, the University should leverage its areas of strength as a model for internal reform, focusing on targeted policies to mitigate the identified risks and ensure its pursuit of a sustainable future is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The University of Mosul demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.266, which is notably healthier than the national average of -0.386. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk approach to author affiliations that aligns with the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's affiliations are managed transparently, reflecting legitimate collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This controlled environment fosters clear accountability and reinforces the integrity of the University's collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 2.071, the University operates within a significant risk zone, a situation mirrored at the national level where the average is 2.124. Although the institution is a global outlier in this metric, its performance is marginally better than the critical national average, suggesting a degree of attenuated control within a highly compromised environment. A rate this far above the global average is a serious alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 4.915, a critically high value that significantly amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.034). This indicates that the institution is not merely following a national trend but is an outlier, suggesting a pronounced pattern of internal citation. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation and the potential for 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a significant risk with a Z-score of 5.007, positioning it as a global outlier. However, this score is slightly below the national average of 5.771, indicating that while the problem is severe, the University shows marginally more control than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The University of Mosul shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.271, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -1.116. This complete absence of risk signals indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-governed and transparent. It confirms that extensive author lists are likely confined to disciplines where they are legitimate and necessary, such as 'Big Science' collaborations, rather than being a sign of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' authorships.
The University demonstrates a commendable position of preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.354 in a country where the average score indicates a medium risk (0.242). This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A negative gap signals that the scientific prestige of the University is structural and not dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a strong internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, suggesting that its excellence metrics are the result of its own robust research programs rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
With a Z-score of -0.668, the University of Mosul maintains a prudent and low-risk profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.319). This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with a low incidence of authors publishing at extreme volumes. The institution effectively avoids the risks associated with hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The University shows an exemplary low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.268) that isolates it from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 1.373). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the national tendency toward publishing in in-house journals. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own publications, the University successfully mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The University's Z-score of 1.484 places it at a medium risk level, showing a higher exposure to this issue compared to the national average of 1.097. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to publishing works with significant bibliographic overlap. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
