| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.261 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.855 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.716 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.619 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.651 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.652 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.300 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.540 | -0.139 |
Jahangirnagar University presents a composite integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.718 reflecting a combination of notable strengths and significant areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary practices in key areas, with very low risk signals for output in its own journals and for redundant publications, indicating a strong foundation in editorial independence and research substance. However, this is contrasted by a significant alert concerning the rate of retracted output, alongside medium-level risks in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity challenges coexist with clear thematic leadership, particularly in Psychology, where the university ranks 1st in Bangladesh, and strong national standings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (9th), Medicine (10th), and Social Sciences (10th). Although the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, the identified risks, especially the high rate of retractions, fundamentally challenge the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its research strengths, it is recommended that the university leverage its areas of good governance to develop targeted policies that address these vulnerabilities, ensuring its scientific contributions are both influential and unimpeachable.
With an institutional Z-score of 0.261, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.589, the university demonstrates effective management of a risk that appears more common across the country. This suggests a differentiated and more controlled approach to researcher affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university’s ability to moderate this trend indicates a robust internal policy framework that successfully mitigates the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
The university's Z-score of 1.855 for retracted output is a critical concern, as it significantly exceeds the national average of 0.666 and amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high Z-score moves beyond individual cases to alert to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution exhibits a high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.716 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.027. This indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to developing scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation. It suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 0.619, the university shows a greater tendency to publish in discontinued journals compared to the national average of 0.411. This high exposure constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The university's Z-score of -0.651, while low, is slightly higher than the national baseline of -0.864, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. In specific 'Big Science' fields, extensive author lists are legitimate and necessary. However, this minor uptick serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines remain transparent and accountable. It is a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices before they escalate.
The university's Z-score of 0.652 reveals a significantly wider gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of its leadership-driven research when compared to the national average of 0.147. This high value suggests a sustainability risk, indicating that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaboration than on its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal innovation or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.300 marks a moderate deviation from the national context, which sits at a low-risk -0.403. This shows a greater institutional sensitivity to the risk of hyperprolific authorship. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge 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—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
This indicator is an area of exceptional strength, with the university's Z-score of -0.268 showing a complete absence of risk signals, even below the already low national average of -0.243. This demonstrates a firm commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked internally.
The university demonstrates strong governance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.540 indicating a very low risk that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (-0.139). The clear absence of signals for 'salami slicing' reflects a healthy research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication counts. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and shows respect for the academic review system by not overburdening it with fragmented or minimally publishable units.
