| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.113 | 0.349 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.750 | 0.437 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.078 | 0.600 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.037 | -0.427 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.745 | 1.206 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.859 | -0.511 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.048 | 0.459 |
Obafemi Awolowo University presents a balanced and resilient integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.015 that indicates a solid alignment with expected scientific conduct. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship, alongside a complete absence of risk in publishing in its own journals. These strengths are complemented by notable academic leadership, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top national positions in key areas such as Dentistry (#1), Computer Science (#3), Psychology (#4), and Medicine (#5). However, medium-risk signals in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap in Impact with Leadership, and the Rate of Redundant Output pose a potential challenge to its mission. These vulnerabilities could undermine the goal to "advance frontiers of knowledge" and "engender a sense of selfless public service" by suggesting a dependency on external leadership for impact and a partial exposure to low-quality publication channels. By strategically addressing these specific areas, the University can fortify its research ecosystem, ensuring its operational practices fully reflect its stated commitment to excellence and its valued cultural and public service contributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.113, contrasting with the national average of 0.349. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as the University successfully mitigates a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. While the country shows a moderate tendency that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, the University’s low-risk profile suggests that its governance and control mechanisms are effective. This ensures that multiple affiliations predominantly reflect legitimate researcher mobility and genuine partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's collaborative reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.024, significantly lower than the country's medium-risk score of 0.121, the institution showcases robust internal quality controls. This performance indicates that the University acts as an effective filter against the systemic vulnerabilities observed nationally. While a higher national rate could suggest recurring issues in pre-publication oversight, the University's low score points to a healthy integrity culture where quality control mechanisms appear to be functioning well, preventing the escalation of unintentional errors or potential malpractice before they enter the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.750 is exceptionally low compared to the national average of 0.437. This differential highlights a strong institutional capacity to resist the national trend toward scientific isolation. While the country's medium-risk score warns of potential 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, the University's profile demonstrates a deep integration into the global research community. This commitment to external validation ensures its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.078, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably better than the national average of 0.600. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the University is actively moderating a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Although not entirely immune to the issue, this lower score indicates more effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It is a critical alert that a portion of its output is channeled through media failing to meet international standards, but the institution shows greater control in mitigating the associated reputational risks compared to its national peers.
With a Z-score of -0.037, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.427. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While the overall risk is minimal, the data suggests the University shows slightly more signals of potential author list inflation than its peers. This serves as a proactive signal to review authorship policies to ensure they continue to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby maintaining transparency and individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of 2.745 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.206, indicating a high exposure to a shared systemic challenge. This wide positive gap suggests that the University's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be fully structural. The score warns that its impressive global impact metrics could be a result of strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This highlights a sustainability risk and invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase its own internal capacity for leading high-impact research.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.859, which is markedly lower than the national average of -0.511. This indicates that the University manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The very low score reflects an environment that effectively discourages practices that prioritize sheer volume over quality. It suggests a strong institutional culture that mitigates the risks of coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' by fostering a balance between productivity and meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This total alignment shows a complete absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy or conflicts of interest. By not relying on in-house journals, the University demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility without resorting to internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of 0.048, the institution shows evidence of differentiated management compared to the national average of 0.459. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the University's score is substantially lower, indicating it is more effectively moderating the national tendency toward data fragmentation. This suggests that while the pressure to inflate productivity exists, the institution has stronger mechanisms to encourage the publication of coherent, significant studies over the practice of dividing research into 'minimal publishable units', thereby better protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
