| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.892 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.612 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.558 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.157 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.456 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.185 | -0.139 |
The International Islamic University Chittagong demonstrates a scientific profile with notable strengths in research integrity and clear opportunities for strategic enhancement. With an overall score of 0.160, the institution exhibits a commendable performance, particularly in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authored output, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a solid foundation in authorship ethics and a commitment to external validation. These strengths are reflected in its competitive national positioning within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in Social Sciences (3rd), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (4th), and Mathematics (4th). However, several medium-risk indicators, such as the rates of output in discontinued journals, institutional self-citation, and multiple affiliations, are more pronounced than the national average. These patterns could subtly undermine the University's mission to cultivate "ethical sensitivity," "intelligence," and the ability to "think independently," as they suggest a potential focus on quantitative metrics over qualitative impact. To fully realize its vision of contributing to "socio-economic development and moral upliftment," the institution is encouraged to leverage its foundational integrity to address these vulnerabilities, ensuring its excellent research output is built upon practices that are both robust and transparent.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.892, which is elevated compared to the national average of 0.589. This indicates that the University is more exposed to the dynamics associated with this indicator than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate suggests a need for internal review. It is crucial to verify that these affiliations reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that all declared contributions are transparent and accurately represented.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.666, which signals a medium-level risk. This positive differential highlights the University's institutional resilience. It suggests that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This strong performance in post-publication responsibility signifies a robust integrity culture, where potential errors are likely addressed before they escalate, protecting the institution's scientific record.
The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.612, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.027. This result suggests a high exposure to practices that can lead to scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern risks creating an endogamous impact, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.558 in this category, a value that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.411. This high exposure constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high score indicates that a significant portion of 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 to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The University's Z-score of -1.157 signifies a very low risk of hyper-authorship, which is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.864. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This result indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-calibrated, effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation and ensuring that credit is assigned in a manner that reflects genuine contribution and maintains individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.456, the institution shows a wider gap than the national average of 0.147, indicating a higher exposure to impact dependency. This positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a notable portion of the University's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity for high-impact research.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk in this area and outperforming the national low-risk average of -0.403. This finding points to a low-profile consistency, where the institution's practices are in line with a secure national environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output, steering clear of dynamics where extreme publication volumes might challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.243, with both at a very low-risk level. This demonstrates a clear integrity synchrony and a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. By not relying on in-house journals for dissemination, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice reinforces its commitment to independent, external peer review, which is fundamental for ensuring global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.185 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.139, which sits at a low-risk level. This difference suggests the University shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with data fragmentation. A score in this range alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This approach, known as 'salami slicing,' can distort the available scientific evidence and warrants a review of publication strategies to prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.
