| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.545 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.032 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.566 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.020 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.763 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.403 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.106 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.620 | -0.139 |
The University of Dhaka demonstrates a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.146, indicating performance that is generally aligned with global standards but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over individual researcher practices, evidenced by very low risk signals in the rates of hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. However, areas of medium risk, particularly a high dependency on external collaborations for impact (Gap between Impact) and a rate of multiple affiliations that mirrors national trends, suggest systemic vulnerabilities that warrant review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity metrics underpin a position of clear national leadership in several key disciplines, with the University ranking #1 in Bangladesh for Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, and holding top-tier positions (#2) in Business, Management and Accounting, Chemistry, Medicine, and Psychology. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge common institutional goals of achieving sovereign scientific excellence and sustainable social contribution. Upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity is fundamental to ensuring that this recognized disciplinary leadership translates into robust, long-term value and public trust. Overall, the University of Dhaka presents a profile of considerable strength; by proactively addressing the identified medium-risk areas, particularly by fostering internal research leadership, the institution is well-positioned to consolidate its national prominence and enhance its global scientific standing.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.545, closely mirroring the national average of 0.589. This alignment suggests that the university's practices reflect a systemic pattern shared across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The similarity between the institution's score and the national benchmark indicates that its approach to affiliations is standard for its context, likely influenced by shared national policies or collaborative research norms rather than unique internal practices.
The institution's Z-score is 0.032, a figure significantly lower than the national average of 0.666. This notable difference points to effective and differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates risks related to publication integrity that appear more common in the national scientific landscape. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The institution's ability to maintain a much lower rate than its national peers indicates that its internal review, supervision, and methodological rigor are likely more robust, safeguarding its scientific record from vulnerabilities affecting the broader environment.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.566, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.027. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of self-citation observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. By maintaining a low rate, the University of Dhaka avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 0.020, the institution performs substantially better than the national average of 0.411. This indicates a clear case of differentiated management, where the university effectively moderates the risk of publishing in low-quality or discontinued journals, a practice more prevalent in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's low score suggests its researchers exercise greater discernment, protecting it from the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score in this area is -0.763, slightly higher than the national average of -0.864. This proximity to the national benchmark, combined with a slightly elevated signal, points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's score, though low, suggests a minor but noticeable tendency toward this practice compared to its peers, signaling a need to ensure that authorship attributions remain transparent and justified.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.403, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.147. This reveals a high exposure to risks associated with dependency on external collaboration for impact, a vulnerability more pronounced here than in the broader national environment. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential risk to sustainability. The score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.106 is well below the national average of -0.403, demonstrating low-profile consistency in this area. The complete absence of risk signals for hyperprolific authors aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's very low score indicates a healthy research environment where productivity expectations are balanced and the integrity of the scientific record is not compromised by anomalous publication rates.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.243. This reflects an integrity synchrony with its environment, where the risk of academic endogamy is minimal across the board. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility by bypassing independent external peer review. The very low scores for both the institution and the country indicate that this is not a concern, suggesting that researchers are engaging with the broader international scientific community for validation and dissemination.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.620, significantly lower than the national average of -0.139. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals for redundant publication is even more pronounced than in the already low-risk national context. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The university's very low score is a strong positive signal, indicating that its research culture prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over artificially inflated output metrics.
