Lebanese American University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Lebanese American University presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by an overall risk score of 1.134. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in research autonomy and publication ethics, particularly in its low rates of redundant output and publication in institutional journals, and a notable capacity for generating impactful research without depending on external leadership. These strengths align with its mission to advance scholarship and foster academic excellence. This leadership is reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where the university holds top national positions in critical areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Social Sciences. However, this strong performance is contrasted by significant risks in authorship and affiliation practices, specifically concerning hyper-prolific authors and multiple affiliations. These vulnerabilities could undermine the university's commitment to forming leaders and ensuring the integrity of its scholarly contributions. To fully realize its mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its foundational strengths to implement targeted governance reforms that address these specific high-risk areas, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is built on a bedrock of unimpeachable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 6.156 in this indicator, a value that significantly exceeds the national average of 2.241. This suggests that the university not only participates in but also amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national research system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a high rate serves as a critical alert. It points to a potential systemic pattern of strategic behavior aimed at inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could dilute the university's distinct academic identity and misrepresent its research contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.277, the university's rate of retracted publications is notably lower than the national average of 0.447. Although both the institution and the country operate within a context where retractions occur, this difference indicates a more effective management of this risk. It suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are more robust than those of its national peers. This differentiated approach helps moderate a common risk, signaling a stronger institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents potential systemic failures before they result in public corrections.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.950, which represents a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.186. This discrepancy indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers across the country. A certain degree of self-citation is expected, but this elevated rate warrants a review. It may signal the formation of scientific "echo chambers" or a degree of academic isolation, where research is validated internally rather than by the broader global community. This practice carries the risk of creating an endogamous impact that could be perceived as inflated, potentially limiting the external recognition of the university's work.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.209 for publications in discontinued journals is higher than the national average of 0.101. This indicates that the university has a greater exposure to this risk compared to its national environment. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. This pattern suggests a vulnerability to channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, which could expose the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.823, which is lower than the national average of -0.505. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications, the university effectively avoids the risks associated with author list inflation. This practice reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contribution rather than honorary or political attributions.

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

A key institutional strength is revealed in this indicator, where the university's Z-score is -1.494, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.285. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent in the country. The score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by research where its own scholars exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of scientific maturity and sustainability, confirming that its excellent impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic reliance on collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university shows a Z-score of 5.215, a critical value that significantly amplifies the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (1.633). This extreme rate of hyper-prolificacy is a major red flag, as such individual publication volumes challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to a potential systemic imbalance between quantity and quality, pointing to severe risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This dynamic prioritizes metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record and requires immediate attention.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.192, indicating a total operational silence in this risk area. This complete absence of signals demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive reliance on in-house journals. By channeling its output through external venues, the university ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, thereby maximizing its global visibility and validating its scientific contributions against international standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.647, the university shows a complete absence of risk signals for redundant output, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.164. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a robust defense against the practice of "salami slicing." It suggests that the institution's research culture prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity by fragmenting data into minimal publishable units. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and reflects a high standard of research ethics.