| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.498 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.023 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.348 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.161 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.019 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.538 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.133 | -0.139 |
Sylhet Agricultural University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.046 that aligns closely with the global average. This indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices, characterized by significant strengths in managing academic endogamy, author productivity, and the impact of its own led research. The institution demonstrates notable resilience, consistently outperforming national risk averages in key areas such as institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. This strong governance is reflected in its leadership position within Bangladesh, holding top national rankings in core thematic areas like Agricultural and Biological Sciences (Top 2), Veterinary (Top 2), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 3), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a high exposure in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations presents a specific vulnerability that could challenge its mission "to be a centre of excellence" and provide "leadership." An inflated affiliation rate, if not carefully managed, can create a perception of credit-seeking rather than genuine collaboration, potentially undermining the authenticity of its leadership claim. To fully realize its vision, the University is advised to leverage its considerable strengths in research integrity to develop clearer, more transparent policies around institutional affiliations, thereby ensuring its excellent scientific output is matched by unimpeachable operational conduct.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.498 in this indicator, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.589. Although both the University and the country fall within a medium-risk category, this pronounced difference suggests the institution is particularly exposed to this specific risk factor compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This level of exposure warrants an internal review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive, transparent, and verifiable collaborations, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.023, the University demonstrates a much lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.666. This indicates a differentiated and effective management of publication quality. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the national trend suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance points to a culture of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, successfully mitigating the systemic vulnerabilities that may be more prevalent across the country and preventing the kind of recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply.
The institution's Z-score of -0.348 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing institutional resilience when contrasted with the national average of 0.027, which signals a medium-risk environment. This performance suggests that the University's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the country's systemic risks related to academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's low rate indicates it successfully avoids creating 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This demonstrates that the institution's academic influence is healthily rooted in global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.161, the University operates at a low-risk level, a positive deviation from the national medium-risk average of 0.411. This gap highlights the institution's resilience and its capacity to filter out questionable publication channels. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert, but the University's low score indicates that its researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination media. This protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices and shows a commitment to channeling resources toward impactful and credible scientific communication.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.019, which is even lower than the national low-risk average of -0.864. This suggests that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive sign. It indicates that the University effectively avoids author list inflation, a practice that can dilute individual accountability. This prudent approach reinforces transparency and helps distinguish necessary massive collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The University's Z-score of -0.538 is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and leadership, especially when compared to the national average of 0.147, which points to a medium-risk dependency on external partners. This demonstrates institutional resilience against a national trend. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is exogenous and not structural; however, the University's negative score indicates the opposite: the research it leads has a higher impact than its overall collaborative portfolio. This is a powerful testament to its real internal capacity and its ability to exercise genuine intellectual leadership, aligning perfectly with its mission.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution is in a very low-risk zone, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.403. This result reflects a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's very low score indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and thus upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is firmly in the very low-risk category, slightly better than the national average of -0.243. This signals a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, with an absence of problematic signals that is even below the already low national baseline. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and suggest academic endogamy. The University's score demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility rather than being fast-tracked internally.
The institution's Z-score of -0.133 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.139, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context and size. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The University's alignment with the low-risk national average suggests that this is not a systemic practice. This indicates a general adherence to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than prioritizing volume through the distortion of the scientific record.
