Jerash Private University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jerash Private University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.477 that reflects a combination of exceptional governance in some areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of hyperprolific authorship and output in its own journals, indicating robust internal controls that promote research quality over quantity. These strengths provide a solid foundation for addressing the primary areas of concern: a significant rate of retracted output and a high volume of publications in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most competitive thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Mathematics, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. However, the identified risks directly threaten the university's mission to "contribute to building and developing the knowledge community" and "keep abreast of technological developments." High retraction rates and engagement with low-quality journals undermine institutional credibility and contradict the goal of providing society with "qualified human resources." To align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its proven governance capabilities to implement targeted quality assurance and information literacy programs, transforming its current challenges into a new standard of scientific excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.857, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.836. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's prudent profile in this area indicates that its collaborative practices are well-managed, avoiding the reputational risks associated with "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.193, the institution shows a significant risk level that starkly accentuates the moderate vulnerability observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.101). This severe discrepancy suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically within the university. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert for the institution's integrity culture, pointing towards possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This finding demands immediate qualitative verification by management to identify and rectify the root causes, as it poses a direct threat to the institution's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.079 is notably lower than the national average of 1.075, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university's lower rate suggests it is less susceptible to the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a healthier balance, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than primarily internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.259 is a critical alert, indicating a significant risk level that dramatically amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.544). This high value constitutes a critical warning regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It 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 to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.808. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's current low level is positive, but the slight upward signal compared to its peers suggests a proactive review of authorship policies is advisable to ensure transparency and prevent the emergence of 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.889 indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing 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 dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research capabilities to ensure long-term scientific autonomy and recognition.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in a very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.332). This result is a significant strength, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's excellent performance in this area suggests a culture that values substantive research over sheer productivity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.610). This is a strong indicator of good governance. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy. By channeling its research through external, independent venues, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation. This practice avoids the potential use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts and significantly enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of -0.262 reflects a low-risk profile, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.522. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effective in mitigating a common national trend. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score indicates a healthy research practice that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.