Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.464, the institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices and internal publication ethics, outperforming national trends in multiple key areas. However, this operational diligence is contrasted by significant-risk indicators in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, which suggest systemic issues in citation behavior and dissemination strategy. These challenges directly conflict with the university's mission to foster "leadership, entrepreneur and creativity" through "wise governance" and "quality assurance." The institution's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its top national rankings in fields such as Chemistry (1st in Jordan), Environmental Science (3rd), Medicine (3rd), and Physics and Astronomy (3rd) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its demonstrated strengths in authorial integrity to implement a comprehensive strategy that promotes broader scholarly engagement and reinforces rigorous selection of publication venues, thereby ensuring its research impact is both authentic and globally recognized.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.357, a low-risk value that contrasts with the national average of 0.836. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s contained rate suggests its policies successfully prevent practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, standing in favorable contrast to the national Z-score of 0.101. This performance suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are robust and function as a filter against the moderate risk levels observed nationally. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of institutional health, indicating that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are effectively preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to such events, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 3.392 is a significant-risk signal that sharply exceeds the country's medium-risk average of 1.075. This finding indicates an accentuation of risk, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. 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 academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A Z-score of 2.601 places the institution in the significant-risk category, amplifying the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (2.544). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.006, which is lower than the national average of -0.808. Both scores are in the low-risk category, but the university's result suggests it manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This indicates a healthy approach to collaboration, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale teamwork and practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. By maintaining transparency and accountability in its author lists, the institution reinforces the integrity of individual contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.663 reflects a medium-risk level, which is notably higher than the country's average of 0.170. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the university is more prone than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, prompting a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase internal research excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating effective resilience against the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.332). This suggests that institutional oversight is successfully mitigating the pressures that can lead to hyperprolificacy. By keeping this indicator low, the university avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' and promotes a research culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over purely quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution exhibits an exemplary Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.610. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, showing that its output competes successfully in standard competitive channels rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.304 is in the low-risk range, indicating strong institutional resilience when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.522. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effective in preventing the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By maintaining a low rate of redundant output, the institution shows a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics. This approach respects the scientific record and the peer-review system by prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over sheer volume.