| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.704 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.020 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.831 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.909 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.157 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
4.525 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.515 | 0.522 |
Isra University presents a mixed integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.290 that reflects a combination of commendable governance in certain areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of output in its own journals and prudent management of hyper-authorship and retractions, indicating robust control mechanisms in these domains. However, these strengths are overshadowed by significant risks in Institutional Self-Citation and Hyperprolific Authorship, which are not only high in absolute terms but also amplify concerning national trends. These practices suggest a potential focus on quantitative metrics over qualitative impact, a dynamic that could undermine the university's mission to achieve "international standards of excellence." While the institution shows strong national positioning in key thematic areas such as Energy, Medicine, Chemistry, and Pharmacology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the identified integrity risks threaten to devalue these achievements by creating a perception of inflated or endogamous impact. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its areas of procedural strength to conduct a thorough review of its authorship and citation policies, ensuring that its pursuit of scientific development is transparently and sustainably grounded in global best practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.704, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.836. This comparison suggests that the university has a greater exposure to the risks associated with this indicator than its peers within the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate here warrants a closer look. It may signal that the institution is more prone to practices like "affiliation shopping," where researchers or the institution itself strategically use affiliations to inflate institutional credit and visibility, a behavior that requires careful monitoring to ensure academic contributions are accurately represented.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile, which contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.101. This indicates a degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is upheld, preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to a higher retraction rate.
The institution's Z-score of 4.020 is at a significant risk level, starkly accentuating the moderate vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score 1.075). This finding is a critical alert, as it suggests the university is amplifying a problematic national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.831, which, while indicating a medium risk, is lower than the national average of 2.544. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the university is actively moderating a risk that appears to be more common or severe across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the university is performing better than its national peers, the existing risk level indicates that a non-trivial portion of its research is still being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a continued need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.909, reflecting a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the low-risk national standard of -0.808. This demonstrates a commendable ability to manage authorship practices effectively. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The university's low score suggests it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship, thereby upholding transparency and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
With a Z-score of 1.157, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.170. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than built upon its own structural capacity. This disparity invites critical reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal innovation or a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 4.525 is at a significant risk level, dramatically amplifying a vulnerability that is present at a more moderate level in the national system (Z-score 0.332). This is a major red flag. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator urgently alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to severe risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. Such dynamics prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and require immediate review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, a clear point of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score 0.610). This result is highly positive, indicating that the university does not replicate the risks of academic endogamy seen in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution has a Z-score of 2.515, indicating a high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.522. This suggests the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This high value serves as a warning that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
