| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.194 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.230 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.931 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.553 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.493 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.404 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.164 | -0.139 |
The University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.039 indicating general alignment with expected scientific conduct. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, signaling a culture of external validation and sustainable productivity. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, a significant dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a moderate rate of redundant publications. These vulnerabilities contrast with the institution's strong academic positioning in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, and Social Sciences, where it ranks among the top 30 nationally according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of developing "responsible and caring citizens" through the "free and creative pursuit of knowledge," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices like data fragmentation or publishing in predatory journals directly challenge the principle of responsible knowledge creation and can undermine the pursuit of excellence. By leveraging its clear strengths in research integrity to mitigate its vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its reputation and ensure its academic contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.194 contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.589. This comparison suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as the University successfully mitigates systemic risks that appear more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can arise from legitimate collaborations, the institution's controlled rate indicates that its governance mechanisms are effective in preventing strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. This prudent approach reinforces the transparency and authenticity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution demonstrates a stronger integrity profile than the national average of 0.666. This indicates effective institutional resilience, suggesting that the University's quality control mechanisms are more robust than the national standard. Retractions can signal a failure in pre-publication oversight, and a high rate can point to recurring malpractice. The University's low score suggests its supervisory and review processes are functioning well, acting as a filter against the systemic vulnerabilities that may be affecting other institutions in the country and upholding a culture of methodological rigor.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.931, a figure that signals exceptional performance against the national average of 0.027. This result points to a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the University actively avoids the risk patterns observed in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is normal, but the national score suggests a potential for 'echo chambers.' In contrast, the University’s very low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader international community, not just internally, thereby ensuring its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than endogamous dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.553 is elevated when compared to the national average of 0.411. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the University shows a higher exposure to this particular risk, suggesting it is more prone to these alert signals than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This indicates that a segment of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.493, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.864. This slight difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the emergence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, a rising rate of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors meet the criteria for meaningful contribution, distinguishing necessary collaboration from honorary or political authorship.
With a Z-score of 2.404, the institution shows a significantly higher risk exposure than the national average of 0.147. This pronounced gap suggests that while the University's overall impact is notable, its scientific prestige may be heavily dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. A high value in this indicator signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This dependency could pose a long-term risk to its research autonomy and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.403. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals not only meets but exceeds the national standard for responsible productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship. The University's very low score is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.243, both of which are very low. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the University's publication practices are in total harmony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.164, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.139. This discrepancy indicates that the University shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
