| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.474 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.286 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.708 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.918 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.147 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.442 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.096 | 0.522 |
Irbid National University presents a profile of notable strengths and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall integrity score of 1.509, the institution demonstrates exemplary control in key areas such as the management of hyperprolific authorship and the use of institutional journals, effectively insulating itself from risks prevalent at the national level. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by significant alerts in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output, which are substantially higher than the national average and require immediate strategic intervention. The university's academic strengths, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, are particularly prominent in Energy and Environmental Science, where it ranks among the top 5 in Jordan. These thematic leadership positions align directly with its mission to promote scientific research for sustainable development. Nevertheless, the identified integrity risks, particularly those related to publication quality and originality, pose a direct threat to this mission. Practices that prioritize volume over substance undermine the pursuit of a "qualitative leap" and "distinction," potentially compromising the "global competencies" of its graduates. Addressing these vulnerabilities is not merely a matter of compliance but is fundamental to safeguarding the institution's reputation and ensuring its research genuinely contributes to societal advancement as envisioned in its mission.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.474, a value indicating low risk, which contrasts with the national average of 0.836. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience. While the national context shows a moderate tendency towards multiple affiliations—a practice that, if excessive, can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit—the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate these systemic pressures. The institution's contained rate reflects a clear and well-managed affiliation policy, ensuring that collaborations are transparent and legitimate rather than a strategy for "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.286, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of 0.101. This indicates a higher exposure to the factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate that exceeds the national benchmark suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges. This moderate deviation warrants a review to ensure that potential systemic issues, such as a lack of methodological rigor or recurring malpractice, are identified and addressed before they escalate, thereby strengthening the institution's integrity culture.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.708, notably higher than the national average of 1.075. This reveals a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for building on established research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of 6.918, a critical value that significantly amplifies the national average of 2.544. This finding points to a severe accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and immediate need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the squandering of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
The institution's Z-score of -0.147 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.808, though both are in the low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's score, while low, is beginning to show signals that are less controlled than the national standard. It serves as an early indicator to proactively reinforce policies that distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices before they escalate.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.442, which is higher than the national average of 0.170. This demonstrates a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a risk to long-term scientific sustainability. This value suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, effectively isolating itself from the national trend, which stands at a moderate-risk 0.332. This preventive isolation indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding extreme publication volumes. By maintaining this very low rate, the institution successfully avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the national context, where the average score is 0.610. This result is highly positive, indicating that the university does not rely on its own journals for publication. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, the institution avoids the associated risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive mechanisms rather than potentially biased internal channels.
The institution's Z-score of 3.096 is a significant red flag, drastically amplifying the risk level seen in the national average of 0.522. This score indicates a severe accentuation of a national vulnerability, suggesting that the practice of fragmenting studies is a critical issue. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence available to the community but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent review of authorship and publication guidelines is recommended.
