Al Al-Bayt University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Al Al-Bayt University presents a complex profile with an overall integrity score of 1.138, indicating a moderate level of risk that requires strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining a very low rate of output in its own journals and effectively managing retracted publications, suggesting robust internal review processes in these areas. However, this is contrasted by significant alerts in three key areas: an exceptionally high rate of institutional self-citation, a concerning volume of publications in discontinued journals, and a significant rate of hyperprolific authorship. These vulnerabilities could undermine the university's recognized academic strengths, particularly in fields where it holds a top national ranking according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 2nd in Jordan), Energy (2nd), and Business, Management and Accounting (4th). While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these identified risks pose a direct challenge to the universal academic mission of fostering excellence, transparency, and social responsibility. Addressing these integrity gaps is crucial to ensure that the institution's strong thematic performance is built on a sustainable and globally recognized foundation of scientific rigor.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of 0.651, which is below the national average of 0.836, the university demonstrates effective management of a risk that is common throughout the country's research system. This suggests that the institution's policies or researcher practices are more conservative than the national trend. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's contained rate indicates a differentiated approach that successfully moderates the potential for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice more prevalent at the national level.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.362, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.101, which falls into a higher risk category. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks present elsewhere in the country. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest error correction. However, the university's low rate suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust, effectively preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might indicate, and reinforcing a culture of integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 3.885, a critical value that significantly exceeds the national average of 1.075. This finding suggests that the institution is not just participating in but actively amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation. It warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global community, creating a risk of endogamous impact inflation that requires urgent review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 3.503, the university's rate of publication in discontinued journals is significantly higher than the national average of 2.544. This indicates an accentuation of a national vulnerability, pointing to a critical lapse in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals is a severe alert, suggesting that a significant portion of the university's research is channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent need for improved information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.742 for hyper-authored output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.808, though both remain in a low-risk category. This minor difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this subtle upward trend could, if unchecked, signal a drift towards author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The university shows a Z-score of 1.849 in the gap between its total impact and the impact of its researcher-led output, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.170. This high exposure indicates that the institution is more prone than its national peers to a specific type of dependency. A very wide positive gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is heavily reliant on external partners and may not be structurally sustainable. This finding invites a critical reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 2.246, a significant value that dramatically surpasses the national average of 0.332. This demonstrates a sharp accentuation of a risk that is more moderate at the national level. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator raises a serious alert for 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 inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and demand immediate qualitative review.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.610, which indicates a medium level of risk. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not over-relying on its in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.669 for redundant output, the university shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.522. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices that artificially inflate publication counts. Citing previous work is necessary, but massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This elevated value serves as an alert that researchers may be dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.