| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.502 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.413 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.148 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.144 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.956 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.292 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.661 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.888 | -0.139 |
Noakhali Science and Technology University demonstrates a developing research profile, marked by a combination of commendable integrity practices and specific areas requiring strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.382, the institution shows significant strengths in maintaining low rates of redundant output and hyper-authored publications, indicating a solid foundation in research ethics. However, this is contrasted by notable vulnerabilities, particularly a significant rate of retracted output and a high exposure to multiple affiliation practices, which pose a direct challenge to its mission. The university's academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, are most prominent in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Medicine. To fully realize its stated mission of "maintaining the high quality education" and "practicing wisdom," it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks. These vulnerabilities, especially concerning retractions, can undermine the credibility of its strong thematic areas and contradict the core values of excellence and global contribution. By implementing targeted governance and quality assurance measures, the university can protect its academic reputation, enhance the global impact of its research, and ensure its scientific output is both robust and trustworthy.
The university presents a Z-score of 1.502 for multiple affiliations, a value notably higher than the national average of 0.589. This disparity suggests that the institution has a higher exposure to this particular risk dynamic compared to its national peers, even though the practice is common across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate at the institution warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that appears more pronounced here and could dilute the university's unique research identity.
With a Z-score of 1.413, the institution's rate of retracted output is at a significant level, substantially exceeding the country's medium-risk score of 0.666. This indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a systemic vulnerability. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the national average serves as a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This pattern suggests a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.148, which is higher than the national average of 0.027, placing it in a position of greater exposure within a shared national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this comparatively higher rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.144 for publications in discontinued journals, which is a healthier figure than the national average of 0.411. This demonstrates a degree of institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By effectively avoiding these problematic publication channels, the institution protects itself from the severe reputational damage associated with journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This positive result suggests that the university's researchers are exercising better due diligence in selecting dissemination venues compared to their national counterparts.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.956, closely mirroring the national average of -0.864. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's authorship practices are consistent with the expectations for its context and size. The low score confirms that the institution is not exhibiting patterns of author list inflation outside of disciplines where it is structurally necessary. This reflects a healthy approach to authorship, promoting individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The university's Z-score for the impact gap is 0.292, which is higher than the national average of 0.147. This suggests that the institution is more exposed than its national peers to a dependency on external collaborations for achieving impact. A positive gap is common, but a higher value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more reliant on external partners than on its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact publications result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term research sustainability.
With a Z-score of -0.661, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, performing better than the national standard of -0.403. This indicates that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national average. The low rate suggests an absence of authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This is a positive signal, indicating a healthy balance between quantity and quality and a reduced risk of practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The university's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, which is almost identical to the national average of -0.243. This demonstrates a perfect integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This practice confirms that the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review rather than relying on internal channels, the university strengthens its global visibility and the competitive validation of its research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.888 for redundant output, a very low value that is significantly better than the national average of -0.139. This preventive isolation indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data strongly suggests that the institution's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume is a hallmark of high scientific integrity and responsible research conduct.
