| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.244 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.951 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.101 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.944 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.570 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.250 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.006 | 0.522 |
Al-Balqa Applied University presents a robust integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance and a clear opportunity for targeted improvement. With an overall score of 0.632, the institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices and a commitment to external validation, as evidenced by very low rates of hyperprolific authors and publication in institutional journals. These strengths align with its mission to provide highly qualified graduates and uphold excellent academic standards. This is further reflected in its leadership positions within Jordan, achieving top-tier national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings areas such as Mathematics (1st), Psychology (2nd), Engineering (3rd), and Arts and Humanities (3rd). However, a critical vulnerability exists in the high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which poses a direct reputational risk and contradicts the mission's emphasis on "high standards" and "excel value." Addressing this single, significant risk through enhanced information literacy and publication policies will be crucial to safeguarding the university's otherwise strong scientific standing and ensuring its research practices fully embody its commitment to excellence and market relevance.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.244, contrasting with the national average of 0.836. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as the university successfully mitigates a risk that appears more systemic at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Al-Balqa Applied University's controlled rate suggests that its internal mechanisms effectively prevent the kind of "affiliation shopping" dynamics that may be more prevalent in the wider national context, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine scientific partnership rather than metric-driven strategies.
With a Z-score of 0.051, the institution shows a more contained level of risk compared to the national average of 0.101. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that is common within the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. In this case, the university's performance, while still signaling a need for vigilance, indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be more effective than the national standard, though continuous monitoring is advised to ensure methodological rigor and responsible supervision are maintained.
The university's Z-score of 0.951 is slightly below the national average of 1.075, pointing to a more moderate engagement in this practice. This reflects a differentiated management style where the institution tempers a risk that is otherwise common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's slightly lower score suggests a healthier balance, indicating that while it follows a national pattern, it does so with more restraint, reducing the risk of endogamous impact inflation and fostering greater engagement with the global scientific community than its peers.
The institution's Z-score of 4.101 is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a Z-score of 2.544. This finding constitutes a severe reputational risk, indicating a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards suggests an urgent need for information literacy and stricter guidance for researchers. This practice not only wastes institutional resources but also exposes its scientific output to associations with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing, undermining the credibility of its research.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.944, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.808. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater care than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's lower rate suggests a healthy culture of authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' practices, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.570, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.170. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's negative score is a positive sign, indicating that the impact of research led by its own authors is robust and not overshadowed by collaborative work. This reflects a high degree of intellectual leadership and structural scientific strength, effectively mitigating the risk of prestige dependency that is more apparent at the national level.
The university's Z-score of -1.250 signifies a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.332). This near-total absence of hyperprolificacy is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's excellent result shows it does not replicate these national trends, instead fostering a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, indicating a clear and positive disconnection from the national trend (Z-score of 0.610). This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its research is subjected to standard competitive validation, reinforcing its credibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The university's Z-score of 0.006, while in the same risk category as the national average of 0.522, is substantially lower, indicating a differentiated and more effective management of this issue. This suggests the institution is better at moderating the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. Such practices distort the scientific evidence base. The university's more controlled approach demonstrates a greater focus on publishing significant new knowledge over artificially increasing publication volume, a risk that appears more common in the wider national context.
