International Islamic University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The International Islamic University presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity, particularly in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications, alongside exemplary control over output in its own journals. These areas of robust governance align well with its mission to achieve excellence. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, most critically a high rate of retracted output and a concerning tendency to publish in discontinued journals, which directly challenge the institution's commitment to "excellence" and its standing in the "international perspective." While the university demonstrates strong national rankings in key thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Mathematics according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these reputational risks could undermine its academic credibility. To fully realize its mission, the university must leverage its internal control mechanisms to urgently address the systemic issues leading to retractions and poor journal selection, thereby ensuring its pursuit of knowledge is built upon a foundation of unwavering scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.158, which is below the national average of -0.021, the institution demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to author affiliations. This suggests that its internal processes are more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a commendable policy that avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a commitment to transparent and accurate representation of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.432 is a global red flag, as it significantly exceeds the already high national average of 1.173. This indicates that the university is not only participating in but leading a critical risk dynamic within a compromised national environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.245, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.059. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate signals a healthy reliance on external validation and minimizes the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.179, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.812. This indicates a greater propensity to publish in outlets that fail to meet long-term quality and ethical standards. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.875 that is lower than the national average of -0.681. This suggests that its authorship policies are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. By controlling the rate of publications with extensive author lists, the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices. This approach reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that authorship credit is assigned appropriately.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.514 indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average of 0.218. This wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners and strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on the need to build and promote genuine internal capacity to ensure its reputation for excellence is structural and not merely exogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates notable resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.099 in a national context where the risk is medium (Z-score of 0.267). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effective in mitigating the systemic risks present in its environment. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution successfully avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, guarding against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and thereby prioritizing the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the national average of -0.157, the institution demonstrates a total absence of risk signals in this indicator. This exemplary performance reflects a strong commitment to external validation and independent peer review. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is subjected to standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.630 is very low, aligning with a national context that also shows minimal risk in this area (country Z-score of -0.339). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy publication culture, free from signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The absence of this practice, which artificially inflates productivity by dividing studies into minimal units, indicates that the institution prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume, contributing to a more robust and reliable scientific record.