| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.169 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.122 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.951 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.031 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.048 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.160 | -0.139 |
Hajee Mohammad Danesh University of Science and Technology presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.082 reflecting significant strengths that coexist with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining research autonomy and quality control, evidenced by very low risk in retracted output, impact dependency, hyperprolific authorship, and use of institutional journals. These strengths form a solid foundation for credible research. However, moderate risks are observed in practices related to multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, where the university's exposure exceeds national averages. These vulnerabilities could, if unaddressed, undermine the institution's pursuit of excellence and social responsibility by creating perceptions of inflated credit or academic insularity. The university's strong academic positioning, particularly its leadership within Bangladesh in fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 2nd), Veterinary (3rd), and Business, Management and Accounting (4th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a compelling reason to align its integrity practices with its research excellence. By proactively managing the identified medium-risk areas, the institution can ensure its operational integrity fully supports its distinguished scientific contributions and solidifies its reputation as a national leader.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.169, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.589. Although a medium risk level is a shared pattern at the national level, the university's heightened score suggests it is more prone to these risk dynamics than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this high exposure serves as an alert. It indicates a greater institutional tendency toward practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a behavior that warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.666, which signals a medium risk. This positive divergence indicates that the university has effectively isolated itself from the systemic vulnerabilities observed elsewhere in the country. This preventive isolation points to robust and successful internal quality control and supervision mechanisms that function effectively prior to publication, safeguarding the institution's scientific record and demonstrating a strong culture of integrity.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.122, while the national average is 0.027. Both fall within a medium-risk band, but the institution's score indicates a higher exposure to this particular risk. This suggests a greater tendency toward forming 'echo chambers,' where research is validated internally rather than by the broader scientific community. This pattern poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, potentially creating a perception that the institution's academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.951 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.411, placing it in a position of high exposure within a country already facing a medium risk. This disparity constitutes a critical alert regarding the institution's due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The data suggests that a notable portion of its scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.031, which is lower than the national average of -0.864. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. Within a low-risk national context, the institution stands out for its even more conservative approach. This suggests a healthy academic culture that effectively avoids the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and discouraging practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The university shows a Z-score of -1.048, a figure that signals very low risk and contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.147. This demonstrates a remarkable degree of preventive isolation from the national trend of impact dependency. The score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not reliant on external partners but is instead structural and built upon its own internal capacity. This is a clear indicator of sustainable excellence, where the university's impact metrics are a result of genuine intellectual leadership rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a profile that is even more secure than the low-risk national standard (-0.403). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy academic environment where there are no indicators of potential imbalances between the quantity and quality of publications. The data suggests that practices which can be associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, are not a concern at the institution, reinforcing its commitment to the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.243, reflecting a state of integrity synchrony. Both the university and the country operate in an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. This demonstrates that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals, which mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review, the institution enhances its global visibility and relies on standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.160 indicates a medium risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.139. This difference suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with artificially inflating productivity. The score serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study might be divided into minimal publishable units. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, warranting a review of publication guidelines.
