| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.059 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.164 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.539 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.233 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.392 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.406 | 1.097 |
Tikrit University demonstrates a robust and commendable overall scientific integrity profile, with an aggregate score of 1.003. The institution exhibits significant strengths and acts as a firewall against several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in its low rates of retracted output, minimal dependence on institutional journals, and a healthy balance in its collaborative impact. These positive indicators are complemented by a very low incidence of hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authorship, and multiple affiliations, reflecting a solid governance foundation. However, this strong performance is critically undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which surpasses an already compromised national average. This practice, along with medium-level risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output, poses a direct threat to the university's mission of achieving "leadership and excellence" under "international standards." The university's academic strengths, evidenced by its national top-tier rankings in SCImago data for Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Veterinary, and Social Sciences, provide a powerful platform for growth. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is imperative to address the identified vulnerabilities, especially regarding publication channel selection, thereby ensuring that its demonstrated research capacity translates into sustainable, globally recognized, and ethically sound impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.059, a figure that indicates a near-total absence of risk and positions it favorably against the national average of -0.386. This result suggests a clear and consistent policy regarding author affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's very low rate demonstrates an operational model that avoids any ambiguity or strategic inflation of institutional credit. This low-profile consistency aligns with best practices for transparency and ensures that institutional contributions are represented accurately, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution displays a low and controlled rate of retractions, a stark contrast to the significant risk level seen in the national average of 2.124. This discrepancy highlights the university's role as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic integrity challenges affecting the country. A high rate of retractions often points to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. Tikrit University's performance, however, suggests its supervisory and methodological review mechanisms are robust and function as a firewall, upholding a culture of integrity and preventing the recurring malpractice or lack of rigor observed elsewhere in the national system.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 2.164, placing it at a medium risk level and slightly above the national average of 2.034. This indicates that the university is more exposed to this risk than its peers, reflecting a pattern of internal citation that warrants attention. While a degree of self-citation is natural in specialized research lines, this elevated rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work may not be receiving sufficient external validation. This dynamic creates a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived influence is magnified by internal dynamics rather than by its recognition within the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and external validation of its research.
The university's Z-score of 6.539 represents a significant and critical risk, marking a global red flag as it exceeds the already high national average of 5.771. This indicator is the most urgent vulnerability for the institution. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a substantial part of the university's research is being channeled through platforms that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent, systemic need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources into predatory or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -1.233, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.116. This operational silence in a non-'Big Science' context is a strong indicator of healthy authorship practices. It suggests that the university's research culture effectively avoids the inflation of author lists, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. This result reflects a clear distinction between necessary collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, reinforcing the integrity of its scholarly contributions.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.392, a low-risk value that demonstrates institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.242. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. Tikrit University's negative score is a positive sign, indicating that the impact of research it leads is strong and self-sufficient. This suggests that its scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and structural strength, reflecting a sustainable model of research excellence rather than a dependency on collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the country's low-risk score of -0.319. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to issues like coercive authorship or the dilution of responsibility. The university's excellent result in this area indicates that its environment does not foster these dynamics, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (1.373). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong academic governance. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, allowing research to bypass rigorous external peer review. The university's low score demonstrates a commitment to global validation and competitive standards, ensuring its scientific output is vetted by the international community and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution has a Z-score of 0.406, which falls into the medium-risk category but is notably lower than the national average of 1.097. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university, while not immune to the risk, is moderating a practice that appears more common nationally. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units to artificially boost publication counts. While the university shows some signals of this behavior, its relative control compared to its peers indicates that its policies or academic culture are more effective at encouraging the publication of complete, significant works over fragmented outputs.
