| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.039 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.986 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.841 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.183 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.922 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.256 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.115 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.734 | 0.188 |
The University of Jeddah presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by notable strengths in research culture alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.759, the institution demonstrates robust control in key areas such as preventing institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and academic endogamy, indicating a solid foundation of ethical research practices. These strengths are reflected in its competitive positioning within Saudi Arabia, particularly in thematic areas like Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 4th), Psychology (8th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (9th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant risks, most notably a high rate of retracted output and elevated exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and redundant publications. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to foster "leadership" and prepare a "generation of scholars," as sustained leadership is built on a bedrock of unquestionable scientific quality and credibility. To fully realize its ambitious vision of contributing to national development, the University of Jeddah must strategically address these integrity gaps, reinforcing its quality assurance mechanisms to ensure its practices consistently align with its stated commitment to excellence.
The University of Jeddah shows a higher propensity for multiple affiliations (Z-score: 1.039) compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.704), indicating a greater exposure to the associated risks. This suggests that the institution's collaboration patterns are more prone to generating signals that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and do not lead to practices like “affiliation shopping” that could artificially boost institutional rankings.
This indicator represents a critical alert for the institution. With a Z-score of 1.986, the university not only operates within a high-risk national context (country Z-score: 1.274) but significantly amplifies this risk, positioning it as a global red flag. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, effectively isolating itself from risks observed elsewhere in the country. With a Z-score of -0.841, it stands in stark contrast to the national trend, which shows a medium risk (Z-score: 0.060). This indicates a healthy integration into the global scientific community, where the institution's work is validated through external scrutiny rather than relying on internal "echo chambers." This practice avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition, not just internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 1.183 that is slightly above the national average of 1.132. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. This heightened risk indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The University of Jeddah maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Its Z-score of -0.922 is lower than the country's average of -0.763, indicating a reduced incidence of publications with extensive author lists. This suggests the institution has effective controls to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The university demonstrates differentiated management of its research impact, effectively moderating a risk that is more common nationally. Its Z-score of 0.256 indicates a much smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, compared to the country's average of 0.491. This is a strong positive signal, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is increasingly a result of its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on collaborations where it does not play a leading role. This points toward a sustainable model of research excellence.
The institution shows exemplary preventive isolation from a risk dynamic present at the national level. While the country registers a medium risk for hyperprolific authors (Z-score: 2.211), the university's Z-score of -1.115 signals a near-total absence of this phenomenon. This indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This focus on meaningful intellectual contribution safeguards the integrity of its scientific record.
In this area, the university's practices are in perfect synchrony with a secure national environment. Its Z-score of -0.268 is statistically aligned with the country's average of -0.234, reflecting a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. This alignment confirms that the institution's scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, bypassing potential conflicts of interest associated with in-house journals. This approach ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The university is more exposed to the risk of redundant publications than its national peers, with a Z-score of 0.734 that is significantly higher than the country's average of 0.188. This high exposure serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant and complete new knowledge over volume.
