National Open University of Nigeria

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National Open University of Nigeria presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.531, the institution demonstrates exemplary control over practices such as hyperprolific authorship, redundant publication, and output in institutional journals, indicating a solid foundation in individual and editorial ethics. However, this is contrasted by a significant dependency on external collaborations for research impact and a high exposure to risks associated with self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities could challenge the core of the University's mission "to provide... quality education for all who seek knowledge," as reliance on external leadership and low-quality publication venues may undermine the structural quality and long-term value of its academic contributions. The institution's recognized strengths, evidenced by its SCImago rankings in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, provide a strong base from which to address these challenges. A focused effort to cultivate internal research leadership and enhance due diligence in selecting publication channels will be crucial to fully align its scientific practices with its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.412 is slightly above the national average of 0.349. This value suggests that the University is more prone to the risks associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate serves as an alert. It points to a potential systemic tendency towards practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a dynamic that warrants a review of institutional policies on author affiliation to ensure transparency and fairness in academic recognition.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.380, the institution shows a higher rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.121. This indicates a greater exposure to the underlying issues that lead to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the norm suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently than in peer institutions. This finding should prompt a qualitative verification by management to determine if these events stem from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, which could represent a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.692, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.437. This level of activity indicates a high exposure to the risks of scientific isolation. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns 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.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.483 in this indicator, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.600. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score indicates that a meaningful portion of the University's scientific output is channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.260, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average is -0.427. This indicates that the University has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to hyper-authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this signal outside those contexts suggests a potential for author list inflation. It serves as an alert to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the possibility of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of 4.192 is at a significant level and dramatically amplifies the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.206). This extremely wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. It strongly suggests that the University's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dependency that could compromise its long-term academic autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates exceptional control in this area with a Z-score of -1.413, which is well below the already low national average of -0.511. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy research environment where the pressures that can lead to hyperprolificity are absent. The data confirms that the institution is not showing signals of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reflecting a strong commitment to the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average, which is also -0.268. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The complete absence of risk signals demonstrates that the University successfully avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive dependence on in-house journals. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a preventive isolation from a risk that is present at a medium level across the country (Z-score of 0.459). This result is a clear strength, demonstrating that the University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The very low score confirms the absence of 'salami slicing' practices, where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. This reflects a commendable focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.