| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.348 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.424 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.499 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.870 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.633 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.196 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.272 | -0.139 |
Mawlana Bhashani University of Science and Technology demonstrates a robust and dynamic research profile, characterized by world-class leadership in specific strategic domains alongside identifiable opportunities for enhancing its scientific integrity framework. With an overall score of 0.679, the institution exhibits significant strengths, particularly in its capacity for independent intellectual leadership and its resistance to academic endogamy. However, this is counterbalanced by medium-risk indicators related to publication strategies and authorship patterns, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's excellence is undisputed in several key areas, holding the #1 national rank in Computer Science and Engineering, and the #2 position in both Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Physics and Astronomy. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, the identified risks—especially concerning publication in discontinued journals and hyperprolificacy—could challenge the universal academic commitments to excellence and transparency. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can ensure its outstanding research contributions are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable integrity, thereby solidifying its role as a national and regional leader.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.348, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.589. This result indicates that the university has a greater propensity for this risk factor compared to its national peers, even though both operate within a medium-risk context. This high exposure suggests a need to review affiliation policies. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could dilute the university's distinct academic identity and misrepresent its collaborative contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retractions, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.666. This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent across the country. This strong performance indicates that the university's pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the national average points towards a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are caught early, preventing the need for later corrections and reinforcing the reliability of its research output.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is -0.424, a low-risk value that stands in positive contrast to the national average of 0.027, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience, as the university avoids the trend of insular citation practices observed nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution successfully sidesteps the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This suggests that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a commitment to external scrutiny and global academic dialogue.
The institution's Z-score of 2.499 is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 0.411, placing it in a position of high exposure within a shared medium-risk environment. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications that undermine the credibility of their work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.870 is almost identical to the national average of -0.864, with both falling within the low-risk category. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's authorship patterns are consistent with the expected collaborative norms for its context and disciplines. The absence of elevated risk signals in this area suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are generally well-calibrated, distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic authorship inflation.
The university exhibits an exceptionally strong Z-score of -1.633, a very low-risk signal that marks a preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.147 (medium risk). This result is a key indicator of institutional strength, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is built on solid internal capacity and intellectual leadership. Unlike the national pattern, where impact may be dependent on external partners, this institution demonstrates that its excellence is structural and endogenous. This reflects a sustainable model where high-impact research is directly driven by its own researchers, ensuring long-term academic sovereignty.
With a Z-score of 1.196, the institution shows a medium-risk signal, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.403. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers and warrants a review of its causes. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the country's average of -0.243, with both reflecting a very low-risk environment. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment, both at the institutional and national levels, to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for objective validation and global visibility. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output by adhering to standard competitive validation processes.
The university's Z-score of 0.272 (medium risk) indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average score is -0.139 (low risk). This suggests the institution is more prone to practices that can be interpreted as data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' A higher-than-average value alerts to the risk that some research may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, coherent new knowledge.
