University of Rajshahi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Rajshahi presents a profile of moderate risk (Overall Score: 0.154), characterized by a complex interplay of institutional strengths and specific vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates commendable resilience in areas of core scientific integrity, such as its low rates of retracted output and redundant publications, suggesting robust internal quality controls. However, significant concerns emerge regarding its publication strategy and the sustainability of its research impact. The high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a pronounced dependency on external partners for impactful research pose direct challenges to its mission of achieving "world-class" status and maintaining "international standards." These risks, if left unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of its notable thematic strengths, which include top national rankings in Arts and Humanities (2nd in Bangladesh), Medicine (4th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (6th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align its operational practices with its aspirational goals, the University should focus on fostering genuine intellectual leadership and implementing a more rigorous publication vetting process, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of verifiable and sustainable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score of 0.516, while indicating a medium risk level, is slightly below the national average of 0.589. This suggests a degree of differentiated management where the institution moderates a risk that appears common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University of Rajshahi appears to be navigating this national trend with more control than its peers, but the medium-level signal indicates that affiliation practices still warrant monitoring to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution exhibits a low risk profile, contrasting sharply with the medium risk level observed nationally (0.666). This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national average suggests that the University's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This strong performance indicates a healthy integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting other institutions in the region.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.029 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.027, with both falling into the medium risk category. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the University's citation practices reflect a shared norm at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these medium-level scores warn of a potential for 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared tendency across the country suggests a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University shows a Z-score of 0.782, a medium risk level that is notably higher than the national average of 0.411. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to this issue than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.623, the institution's risk is low, but it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.864. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. Although the current level is not alarming, this slight elevation compared to the national norm suggests a need to proactively ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and are based on meaningful contributions rather than honorary or political considerations.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 2.458 is exceptionally high compared to the national average of 0.147, despite both being classified as medium risk. This reveals a high exposure to a critical sustainability risk. A very wide positive gap suggests that while the University's overall impact is notable, the impact of research led by its own staff is low. This indicates that its scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University's Z-score of -0.075 places it in the low-risk category, yet it is higher than the national average of -0.403. This score points to an incipient vulnerability. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator, being slightly elevated for the institution, serves as a gentle alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It suggests a need to ensure that high output does not stem from risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, which prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, closely mirroring the national average of -0.243. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the University successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than relying on internal channels that could be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.309, the institution displays a lower risk than the national average of -0.139, showcasing a prudent profile in its research practices. This indicates that the University manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' suggests that the institution effectively discourages the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent findings strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture that prioritizes meaningful new knowledge over sheer volume.