| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.593 | 0.715 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.146 | 0.536 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.666 | 0.086 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.612 | 1.371 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.030 | 0.393 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.264 | 1.102 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.368 | 0.274 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.861 | 0.426 |
An-Najah National University presents a strong overall integrity profile, marked by a high performance score of 0.972. This reflects a solid foundation of responsible research practices, particularly evident in its exemplary management of institutional journals and redundant publications, where risks are virtually non-existent. However, this robust core is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities in the areas of retracted output and hyper-authorship, which require immediate strategic attention. The university's academic prowess is undisputed, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data confirming its leadership position within Palestine across key disciplines such as Medicine, Chemistry, Business, Management and Accounting, and Physics and Astronomy. This thematic excellence directly supports its mission to "promote a culture of scientific excellence" and compete in international markets. Nevertheless, the identified integrity risks, especially the high rate of retractions, could undermine this mission by casting doubt on the quality and reliability of its research, thereby threatening the very "excellence" it aims to cultivate. To secure its standing as a regional leader, the university is advised to leverage its strengths in governance to develop targeted interventions that address these specific weaknesses, thus ensuring its reputational and scientific integrity are as strong as its academic output.
With a Z-score of -0.593, significantly lower than the national average of 0.715, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience in managing researcher affiliations. This performance suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of affiliation inflation that are more prevalent at the country level. While multiple affiliations can arise from legitimate collaborations, the university’s controlled rate indicates a prudent approach that avoids strategic practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, thereby safeguarding the transparency and integrity of its collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score for retracted publications is 2.146, a critical figure that significantly amplifies the moderate risk seen at the national level (0.536). This sharp divergence suggests that the university is disproportionately affected by issues leading to retractions. A high Z-score in this indicator is a serious alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, this rate points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation and uphold its commitment to excellence.
The university's Z-score of 0.666 for institutional self-citation is considerably higher than the national average of 0.086. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting that the institution is more prone to internal citation patterns than its peers. This elevated value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community. Such a pattern can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' and warrants a review to ensure that research is validated through sufficient external scrutiny.
The university demonstrates differentiated management in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of 0.612, which is less than half the national average of 1.371. Although both operate in a medium-risk environment, the institution's lower score indicates it is more effectively moderating the common risk of publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. This suggests a stronger due diligence process, which is crucial for protecting the institution from the severe reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices, reflecting a commendable commitment to information literacy.
With a Z-score of 2.030, the institution shows a significant rate of hyper-authored publications, a figure that sharply accentuates the moderate risk observed nationally (0.393). This suggests the university's research culture may be particularly susceptible to practices leading to inflated author lists. When this pattern appears outside of 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate a dilution of individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to investigate authorship practices and distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and 'honorary' attributions that could compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 1.264 indicates a slightly wider gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of its leadership-driven research when compared to the national average of 1.102. This suggests a marginally higher exposure to dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact results. This value invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. Addressing this gap is key to mitigating long-term sustainability risks and ensuring its scientific prestige is both structural and autonomous.
The presence of hyperprolific authors is notably more pronounced at the university (Z-score: 1.368) than in the rest of the country (Z-score: 0.274). This high exposure to the risks associated with extreme individual productivity warrants careful review. Such volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to underlying issues like coercive authorship or data fragmentation. This dynamic prioritizes metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, signaling a need to assess institutional authorship policies to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is in perfect alignment with the national average, demonstrating integrity synchrony in an environment of maximum scientific security. This shared, very low rate of publication in institutional journals is a clear strength. It shows a robust commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By consistently seeking independent external peer review, the institution ensures its research is validated against global standards, enhances its international visibility, and avoids using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, reinforcing the credibility of its scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.861, the university operates in preventive isolation from the moderate national risk of redundant publications (0.426). This exceptional performance highlights robust internal standards that effectively counter the risk dynamics observed in the wider environment. This very low rate indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication metrics. By discouraging the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and demonstrates a clear commitment to quality over volume.
