| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.060 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.009 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.298 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.680 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.274 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.434 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.282 | 0.522 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.411, Yarmouk University presents a profile of notable resilience and specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for retracted output, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, effectively mitigating systemic risks prevalent at the national level. A key area of excellence is the exceptionally low rate of publication in its own journals, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. However, areas requiring attention include a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly pronounced in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 3rd in Jordan), as well as in Arts and Humanities and Medicine (both ranked 4th). While the university's mission focuses on providing programs and services to realize its vision, the identified risks—particularly the dependency on external leadership for impact—could challenge the long-term sustainability and internal consolidation of this vision. Addressing these vulnerabilities will be crucial to ensuring that the institution's recognized excellence is built upon a foundation of robust, independent, and sovereign scientific capacity, thereby fully aligning its operational practices with its strategic aspirations.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.060, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.836. Although this indicator falls within a medium-risk band for both the university and the country, the institution demonstrates more effective management of a practice that is common throughout the national system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Yarmouk University's moderated score suggests it is successfully navigating this complex landscape, mitigating the risk of "affiliation shopping" more effectively than its national peers.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the university exhibits a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.101). This divergence highlights the institution's resilience and suggests that its internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the national context indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance points to a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting other institutions in the country.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is -0.009, positioning it in a low-risk category, while the national average stands at a medium-risk level of 1.075. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university avoids a national trend toward higher self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate indicates it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber' and that its work is receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This performance effectively mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence is genuinely built on recognition from the global community rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score is 2.298, which, while high, is slightly below the national average of 2.544. This indicates that while the university is affected by a widespread national challenge, it exercises slightly better differentiated management than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score, even if comparatively moderate, 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 enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.680, the university aligns with the low-risk national profile (-0.808), but its score is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the institution's authorship practices are generally sound, there are signals that warrant review before they potentially escalate. In fields outside of 'Big Science' where extensive author lists are not standard, even a slight elevation can indicate early signs of author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are maintained across all disciplines.
The university shows a Z-score of 2.274, a figure significantly higher than the national average of 0.170, despite both falling into the medium-risk category. This reveals a high institutional exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the university is more prone to this issue than its national counterparts. A very wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, as it suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This pronounced difference invites deep reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.434 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing its resilience against a medium-risk national environment (0.332). This strong performance indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests it successfully fosters a culture that balances quantity and quality, avoiding the potential pitfalls of coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
Yarmouk University exhibits an exceptionally strong profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) in a national context of medium risk (0.610). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution deliberately avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and credibility and sets a standard of integrity that diverges positively from the national trend.
The university's Z-score for redundant output is 0.282, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.522, although both are classified as medium risk. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution is moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's more controlled score indicates a greater institutional emphasis on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby reducing the distortion of scientific evidence and the burden on the peer-review system.
