Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.323 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than many of its peers. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for generating impactful, internally-led research, as evidenced by a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of its leadership-driven output. This is complemented by a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship and a healthy independence from institutional journals, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation. These strengths are reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where the University holds leading national positions in key areas such as Veterinary (1st in Nigeria), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (2nd), Social Sciences (5th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (7th). However, to fully align with its mission to "build great leaders, found worthy in learning and character" and "advance knowledge," attention is required for medium-risk indicators, particularly a higher-than-average rate of redundant output (salami slicing). Addressing this and other moderate risks, such as institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, will be crucial to ensure that all institutional practices reflect the excellence and sustainable development central to its vision. By leveraging its clear operational strengths to mitigate these vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its role as a national leader in ethical and impactful research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.415, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.349. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University’s controlled rate indicates it is successfully avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” or the strategic inflation of institutional credit, thereby ensuring that its collaborative footprint is transparent and accurately reflects genuine partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in retracted publications, standing in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.121. This differential suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms appear to be filtering out potential issues more effectively than the national standard. A low rate of retractions implies that when they do occur, they are more likely the result of responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors rather than systemic failures. This performance indicates a strong integrity culture that protects the institution from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to higher retraction rates.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution’s Z-score for self-citation is 0.048, which, while in the medium-risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.437. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the University successfully moderates a risk that appears more common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural for building upon established research lines; however, the institution’s comparatively lower rate suggests it maintains a healthier balance between internal validation and external scrutiny. This helps to avoid the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is recognized by the global community, not just amplified by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution records a Z-score of 0.235, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless significantly more controlled than the national average of 0.600. This indicates a differentiated management of publication channels, where the University exercises greater due diligence in selecting dissemination venues than its national peers. While any presence in discontinued journals warrants attention, the institution's ability to moderate this trend helps protect it from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing. This proactive stance suggests a growing information literacy that prevents the misallocation of research efforts and resources into channels that lack international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.097, the institution exhibits a prudent profile that is well below the national average of -0.427. This exceptionally low rate demonstrates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a strong culture of accountability and transparency, effectively preventing the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining such a low rate, the institution ensures that authorship reflects meaningful contribution and avoids the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding the integrity of its research attributions.

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

The institution’s Z-score of -1.404 represents a very low-risk profile and a significant point of strength, especially when compared to the national average of 1.206. This result signifies a clear preventive isolation, where the University does not replicate the risk dynamics of external dependency observed in its environment. A negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is strong and self-sufficient, signaling that its scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity. This performance confirms that the institution exercises true intellectual leadership, avoiding the sustainability risk of relying on collaborations for its academic standing.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that is even stronger than the country's already low-risk average of -0.511. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals exceeds the national standard. The lack of hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution—points to a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. This result suggests an environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' and instead prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution’s Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a perfect integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its research bypasses potential conflicts of interest and is validated through independent, external peer review. This shared best practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, confirming that its work stands up to standard competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 0.746 is a medium-risk signal that requires attention, as it indicates a higher exposure to this practice than the national average of 0.459. This suggests the center is more prone than its environment to publishing research with massive and recurring bibliographic overlap. This pattern is a critical alert for 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Such a dynamic not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. A review of publication and evaluation policies is recommended to address this vulnerability.