| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.182 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.389 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.156 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.694 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.764 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.733 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.560 | -0.139 |
Islamic University, Bangladesh, presents a robust scientific integrity profile with an overall risk score of 0.045, characterized by significant strengths in research autonomy and ethical publication practices, alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in fostering genuine intellectual leadership, with a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research led by its own faculty. This is complemented by very low risk signals in hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its leading national positions in key research areas, including its top rankings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Environmental Science, and Chemistry, as documented by SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, to fully align with its mission of advancing and disseminating knowledge with the highest integrity, the university must address the medium-level risks associated with multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals, which could undermine the credibility and impact of its scholarship. By leveraging its core institutional strengths to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, Islamic University is well-positioned to enhance its reputation for academic excellence and responsible research on a national and global scale.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.182, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.589. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a greater propensity for this activity. This heightened exposure warrants a review of affiliation policies, as disproportionately high rates can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than reflecting legitimate, substantive collaborations. A closer examination is recommended to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to meaningful research partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.389, the institution demonstrates more effective management of this risk compared to the national average of 0.666. While the country as a whole shows a medium-level vulnerability to retractions, the university’s lower rate suggests that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms may be more robust than those of its national peers. This indicates a commendable effort in moderating a common risk, though continued vigilance is necessary to prevent any systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity that could lead to an increase in retracted publications.
The university demonstrates significant institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.156, in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This result indicates that the institution’s control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the university avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader international community, thereby preventing the endogamous inflation of its academic impact and fostering genuine global engagement.
The institution’s Z-score of 0.694 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.411, indicating a high level of exposure to this critical risk. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and due diligence among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality dissemination channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.764 is statistically normal and similar to the national average of -0.864, both falling within the low-risk category. However, the university's score is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While there is no immediate alarm, this subtle signal suggests that a periodic review of authorship practices would be prudent to ensure that author lists consistently reflect genuine intellectual contributions and to preempt any potential trend towards 'honorary' authorship, which can dilute individual accountability.
The institution exhibits exceptional strength in this area, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.733, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.147. This result signifies a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics observed in the wider environment. The data strongly suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This demonstrates a sustainable model of research excellence where impact is generated and led from within the institution.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.403. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy academic environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.243, with both indicating a state of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony demonstrates that the university, like its national peers, does not rely excessively on in-house journals for publication. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific output undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary commitment to research integrity with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.560, significantly outperforming the low-risk national average of -0.139. This absence of risk signals, which is consistent with a high-integrity environment, shows that the university's research culture discourages the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This focus on producing coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating publication counts strengthens the scientific record and underscores a commitment to generating meaningful new knowledge.
