Al-Ahliyya Amman University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Al-Ahliyya Amman University demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global score of 0.760 that reflects a robust foundation alongside specific areas for strategic enhancement. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publication in its own journals, indicating strong pre-publication quality controls and a commitment to external validation. However, areas of medium risk, notably in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in discontinued journals, require focused attention. These risk signals, while moderate, could challenge the university's mission to offer "quality academic programs" and foster "creativity and innovation" by potentially prioritizing metric performance over substantive impact. The university's academic excellence is clearly evidenced by its strong national standing in key disciplines, including top-tier rankings in Chemistry (3rd in Jordan), and prominent positions in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (4th), Dentistry (4th), and Psychology (4th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align its operational practices with its ambitious mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its foundational integrity to develop targeted policies that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research ecosystem is not only productive but also fully transparent, sustainable, and ethically sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 2.425, significantly higher than the national average of 0.836, although both fall within a medium-risk context. This indicates that the institution has a much greater exposure to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a greater propensity for practices like “affiliation shopping” designed to strategically inflate institutional credit. The university should review its affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration without creating incentives for diluting institutional identity or accountability.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.381, the university displays a commendable absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.101). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution's internal governance successfully shields it from broader systemic vulnerabilities. Retractions can signal a failure in quality control, but this very low score suggests that the university's mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and responsible supervision are highly effective, protecting its scientific record and reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.323 for self-citation, which is considerably lower than the national average of 1.075, even though both are classified as medium risk. This points to differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's lower rate mitigates the danger of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This suggests a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking validation from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 2.485 for publications in discontinued journals is slightly below the national average of 2.544, with both indicating a medium level of risk. This suggests the institution is managing this issue somewhat better than its peers, but still faces a significant challenge that is systemic in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of the university's research is being placed in venues that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, posing a reputational risk and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.646, the university maintains a low-risk profile for hyper-authorship, though this is slightly higher than the national average of -0.808. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this slight upward trend compared to the national norm could be an early signal of author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors meet the criteria for meaningful contribution, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability.

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

The university's Z-score for the impact gap is 0.089, notably lower than the national average of 0.170, placing it in a better position within the same medium-risk category. This reflects differentiated management of a common challenge, suggesting the institution is more successful than its peers at building internal research capacity. A wide gap can signal that prestige is dependent on external partners rather than homegrown leadership. The university's smaller gap indicates a more sustainable model, where institutional excellence is increasingly driven by its own structural capabilities and intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.799 for hyperprolific authors is a medium-risk signal that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.332. This high exposure suggests the university is more prone to the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, rates exceeding the bounds of plausible intellectual contribution can point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This alert warrants a closer look to ensure that this output is not a result of coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a very low rate of publication in its own journals, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk level seen nationally (Z-score: 0.610). This is a clear indicator of preventive isolation from a common risk, demonstrating strong institutional governance. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.140, the university shows a low-risk profile for redundant output, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.522). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate publication counts. By fostering an environment that values significant, coherent contributions over sheer volume, the university upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.