| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.310 | 2.241 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.206 | 0.447 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.827 | -0.186 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.241 | 0.101 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.906 | -0.505 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.384 | 0.285 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
4.839 | 1.633 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.112 | -0.192 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.289 | -0.164 |
Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK) demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy alongside critical vulnerabilities in publication and authorship practices. With an overall risk score of 1.049, the institution shows areas of exemplary performance, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership, where it effectively isolates itself from national trends of dependency on external collaborators. This is complemented by prudent management of hyper-authorship and redundant publications. These strengths provide a solid foundation for the institution's notable performance in key thematic areas as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including its leadership in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 2nd in Lebanon), Psychology (4th), and Business, Management and Accounting (5th). However, this profile is challenged by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and hyperprolific authors, which directly contradict the mission's commitment to "quality educational programs," "ethics," and "innovation." These high-risk signals, if unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of its academic achievements and its goal of preparing future leaders. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, USEK is encouraged to leverage its demonstrated strengths in governance to implement targeted interventions that reinforce quality control, promote responsible authorship, and ensure its contributions are both impactful and ethically sound.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.310, slightly above the national average of 2.241. This alignment indicates that the university's practices are consistent with a systemic pattern observed across the country, but its slightly higher score suggests a greater exposure to the associated risks. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this elevated rate warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that these practices are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of 1.206, the institution's rate of retracted publications is significantly higher than the national average of 0.447, indicating a critical issue. This suggests that the university is not only participating in a national vulnerability but is amplifying it. A high rate of retractions points to a systemic weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Beyond individual cases of error, this score serves as an urgent alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.827, showing a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.186. This indicates that the university demonstrates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 0.241 in this indicator is higher than the national average of 0.101, reflecting a shared but more pronounced vulnerability. This high exposure indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling its scientific production 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 due diligence training for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication channels.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.906, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.505. This demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship practices compared to the national standard. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications, the university effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation and ensures that individual accountability and transparency are upheld, reflecting a healthy culture of collaboration where authorship is clearly and appropriately attributed.
With a Z-score of -1.384, the institution shows a remarkable disconnection from the national trend (0.285), where reliance on external partners for impact is more common. This score is a sign of preventive isolation, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A very low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of 4.839 is critically high and significantly accentuates the national vulnerability, which stands at a Z-score of 1.633. This extreme concentration of publications among a few individuals amplifies systemic risks to a severe level. Such an exceptional volume of output challenges the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and serves as a strong alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This pattern points to urgent risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.112 for publishing in its own journals presents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual practice within the national context, where the average score is -0.192. This divergence from the national standard requires a review of its causes. An over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice warns of the risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and indicating the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.289 is lower than the national average of -0.164, indicating a prudent profile in managing publication redundancy. This suggests that the university's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of redundant output demonstrates a commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
