| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.245 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.835 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
10.444 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.199 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.065 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.112 | 1.097 |
The University of Thi-Qar presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant, targeted vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 2.055, the institution demonstrates a commendable performance in managing authorship practices and avoiding academic endogamy, showing very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths are foundational to building a culture of transparency and accountability. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by an extremely high-risk score in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which far exceeds the already elevated national average. This, coupled with moderate risks in Redundant Output and Institutional Self-Citation, points to a need for strategic intervention focused on publication quality control and information literacy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University has established strong national positions in key thematic areas such as Energy, Social Sciences, Medicine, and Business, Management and Accounting. The identified risks, particularly the reliance on low-quality publication channels, directly threaten the credibility and long-term impact of these strategic disciplines, contradicting the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and the value of its research, the University should leverage its clear strengths in authorship governance to implement robust policies and training programs aimed at improving dissemination practices and reinforcing the integrity of its scientific contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.245 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.386, indicating an incipient vulnerability. Although both scores reflect a low-risk environment, the University shows signals of this activity that are beginning to diverge from the national baseline. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend warrants review to ensure it stems from productive collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Proactive monitoring is recommended to maintain this indicator at a low-risk level.
The University demonstrates effective relative containment of a critical national risk. Its Z-score of 0.061 is substantially lower than the country's significant-risk score of 2.124, indicating that the institution operates with more order and control than the national average. This suggests that internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are successfully filtering a systemic vulnerability present in the wider environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national trend suggests that the University's pre-publication review processes are robust, protecting its integrity culture from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
With a Z-score of 1.835, the University shows a moderate level of self-citation that is nevertheless managed more effectively than the national trend (2.034). This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping its rate below the national average, the University mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This prudent management helps ensure its work is validated by the global community, preventing an endogamous inflation of its academic influence and reinforcing its external recognition.
This indicator represents a global red flag and the most urgent challenge for the institution. Its Z-score of 10.444 is exceptionally high, dramatically exceeding the already critical national average of 5.771. This score indicates that the University leads this risk metric within a highly compromised national context. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, suggesting that a significant portion of its scientific production is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an immediate need for systemic intervention in information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity practices.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, demonstrating exemplary governance. Its Z-score of -1.199 signifies a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.116. This indicates that authorship practices are transparent and well-regulated, effectively avoiding the dilution of individual accountability. This performance confirms that the University successfully distinguishes between necessary collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship, setting a high standard for academic integrity.
The University displays strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, as reflected by its Z-score of 0.065, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.242. This demonstrates differentiated management, moderating a national tendency toward dependency on external partners for impact. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon its own research capabilities rather than being primarily an outcome of collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This is a key indicator of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution maintains a profile of low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.413 indicating a complete absence of risk related to hyperprolific authors. This aligns perfectly with a national environment that also shows low risk (Z-score -0.319). This result suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or other questionable practices, the University upholds the integrity of its scientific record and promotes a sustainable research environment.
The University demonstrates a clear strategy of preventive isolation from risks associated with academic endogamy. Its Z-score of -0.268 indicates no reliance on institutional journals, a stark contrast to the moderate risk level observed nationally (1.373). By not replicating this national dynamic, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent, external peer review. This commitment to global validation channels enhances the visibility and credibility of its scientific production and prevents the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic records.
This indicator reveals a high exposure to risk, requiring strategic attention. The institution's Z-score of 2.112 is moderately high and significantly surpasses the national average of 1.097, indicating that the University is more prone to this practice than its peers. This high value alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where research is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the review system but also distorts the scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant and coherent new knowledge.
