| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.685 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.995 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.307 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.251 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.782 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.022 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.425 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.461 | 1.097 |
The University of Sulaimani presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.187 that indicates a moderate level of exposure to questionable research practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance, particularly in its very low rates of redundant output (salami slicing) and publication in institutional journals, suggesting a robust commitment to external validation and substantive research. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted output and medium-level risks associated with multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and a notable dependency on external collaborations for impact. Thematically, the university excels within Iraq, ranking in the top 5 for key areas such as Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of being a "leading institution" that provides the "best training," it is imperative to address these integrity risks. The current vulnerabilities, especially concerning retractions and impact dependency, directly challenge the credibility of its scientific leadership and the quality of the knowledge it generates. By leveraging its proven strengths in editorial governance, the University of Sulaimani can develop targeted strategies to mitigate its weaknesses, thereby ensuring its scientific excellence is built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity and genuine internal capacity.
The University of Sulaimani shows a Z-score of 0.685, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.386. This suggests the institution exhibits a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The university's divergence from the national standard warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and do not artificially inflate the institution's perceived contribution.
With a Z-score of 1.995, the institution's rate of retractions is at a significant level, though it demonstrates slightly more control than the critical national average of 2.124. This attenuated alert, while better than the surrounding context, is a serious concern. A rate significantly higher than the global average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.307 that is substantially lower than the national average of 2.034. This indicates the university successfully moderates a risk that is common in the country. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation. This prudent approach suggests its academic influence is more likely driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration with the international research landscape.
The university's Z-score of 2.251 indicates a medium risk level, but it demonstrates relative containment compared to the country's significant risk score of 5.771. Although the institution operates with more order than the national average, this score is still a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
A slight divergence is noted with the institution's Z-score of -0.782, which, while low, contrasts with the very low national average of -1.116. This indicates the center is beginning to show signals of risk activity that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are normal, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as an early signal to monitor authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' attributions.
The university shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 2.022 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.242. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This metric invites deep reflection on whether its excellence indicators result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could undermine its long-term autonomy and reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.425, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.319, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. The presence of authors with extreme publication volumes challenges the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These dynamics prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require careful review.
The institution exhibits a state of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.373. This is a significant strength, demonstrating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The university's Z-score of -0.461 signifies a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which has a medium-risk score of 1.097. This very low rate of redundant output is a key indicator of scientific integrity. It shows the institution does not engage in the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' This focus on substance over volume reinforces the credibility of its research and demonstrates a respect for the scientific record and the peer-review system.
