Al-Quds University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Al-Quds University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.039. The institution's primary strength lies in its exceptional control over core research practices, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications. These results indicate a strong culture of quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, hyper-authored output, and a notable gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's outstanding thematic performance, particularly its leadership positions within Palestine and the Arab world in fields like Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, as documented by SCImago Institutions Rankings. To fully align with its mission of promoting "academic research and professional excellence," the university must address these risks. Practices that could lead to reputational damage or suggest a dependency on external leadership are inconsistent with the goal of equipping students to "shape a successful future." By leveraging its solid integrity foundation to refine its publication strategy and bolster internal research leadership, Al-Quds University can ensure its operational practices fully reflect its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.242, a value indicating low risk, which contrasts with the national average of 0.715, situated at a medium-risk level. This disparity suggests a high degree of institutional resilience. While the national context shows a greater tendency towards practices that could be interpreted as strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit, Al-Quds University's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate these systemic pressures. The university’s prudent management of affiliations ensures that collaborations are transparent and legitimate, reinforcing its independent academic identity in a complex environment.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, demonstrating a clear divergence from the national average, which stands at a medium-risk score of 0.536. This indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in quality control prior to publication. In this case, the university's exceptionally low score is a positive signal of a mature integrity culture, where robust methodological rigor and effective supervision are in place, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice that would necessitate frequent post-publication corrections.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.246, a very low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.086. This significant difference highlights the university's effective disconnection from national trends that might encourage scientific isolation. A high rate of self-citation can create 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Al-Quds University's profile suggests the opposite: its research is well-integrated into the global scientific community, and its academic influence is validated by external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 1.991 places it in the medium-risk category, a level slightly above the national average of 1.371. This suggests a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating the institution is more prone to this issue than its national peers. A significant presence in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.594, the institution registers a medium-risk signal, exceeding the national average of 0.393. This finding suggests a higher-than-average exposure to practices that can lead to inflated author lists. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, their appearance in other contexts can dilute individual accountability and transparency. For Al-Quds University, this indicator serves as a signal to review authorship practices internally, ensuring a clear distinction is maintained between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship, which can undermine research integrity.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.204 is in the medium-risk range and is slightly higher than the national average of 1.102, indicating a high exposure to this strategic vulnerability. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a considerable portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structurally generated from within. This metric invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence is a result of its own core capacity or its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university shows a Z-score of -1.082, a very low-risk value that effectively isolates it from the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk score of 0.274. This demonstrates a clear preventive stance against the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. Such volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's very low score in this area is a strong positive indicator, suggesting a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and substantive contributions over inflated productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both at a very low-risk level. This reflects a perfect integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's very low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to global standards, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, external channels, thereby maximizing its visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, setting it apart from the national context, where the average score of 0.426 indicates a medium risk. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university's practices do not reflect the vulnerabilities present elsewhere in the country. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to artificially inflate productivity. The university's excellent score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.