| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.301 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.879 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.685 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.274 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.240 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.168 | 0.966 |
Universite Abdelhamid Ibn Badis de Mostaganem presents a robust overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in authorship practices and research autonomy, which strongly support its mission of advancing national scientific potential. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with very low risk in hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authored output, and publication in institutional journals, alongside effective mitigation of retraction risk and a healthy balance in research leadership. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a critical vulnerability in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), which is at a significant risk level. This, combined with medium-level risks in multiple affiliations, self-citation, and use of discontinued journals, poses a direct challenge to the university's mission to ensure the "widespread dissemination of knowledge" with integrity. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Engineering, Energy, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. To fully align its operational excellence with its strategic mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to address the identified areas of high risk, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and ensuring its contributions to science are both impactful and ethically sound.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.301, while the national average is 0.936. This indicates that the university is more prone to the risks associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers, reflecting a higher exposure to this particular dynamic. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this elevated rate suggests a need for review. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where researchers leverage multiple institutional names to maximize visibility or funding opportunities. This practice, if unmonitored, could dilute the institution's unique brand and misrepresent its genuine research footprint.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.334, a notably strong performance compared to the national average of 0.771. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and robust quality control prior to publication. By maintaining this low rate in an environment with higher average risk, the university shows that its integrity culture is successful in preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic vulnerabilities.
With a Z-score of 0.879, the institution's rate of self-citation is nearly identical to the national average of 0.909. This alignment suggests that the university's practices are part of a systemic pattern, reflecting shared academic behaviors at a national level. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural, this medium-risk level points to a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared tendency warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.685 in this indicator, a figure notably higher than the national average of 0.157. This suggests a high institutional exposure to the risks of publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such venues is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet ethical or quality benchmarks, 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.
The institution's Z-score of -1.274 is in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the low-risk national standard of -1.105. This low-profile consistency is an excellent sign of research integrity. The absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with and improving upon the national standard, indicates that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable. It suggests a research culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving the value of individual contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.081. This result points to strong institutional resilience and a sustainable research model. A low gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a key strength, suggesting that its high-impact research is a result of genuine internal capabilities rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a result that is even stronger than the already very low national average of -0.967. This finding represents total operational silence in a critical area of research integrity. It indicates a healthy academic environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained, free from the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution. This reflects a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This perfect integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 3.168 is a significant red flag, indicating a critical issue that amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system (country Z-score: 0.966). This score suggests that the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is not just present but pronounced. Such a high value for redundant output is a serious alert, as 'salami slicing' distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This practice requires an urgent and thorough review of institutional publication policies and author incentives.
