| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.674 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.925 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.263 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.519 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.953 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.254 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.110 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.801 | 0.966 |
Universite Abou Bekr Belkaid Tlemcen presents a mixed integrity profile, characterized by a combination of exemplary internal controls in specific areas and a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths with very low risk levels in preventing hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and excessive use of institutional journals, indicating robust governance in these domains. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the rate of retracted output, which amplifies a national trend and poses a direct threat to academic credibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in several thematic areas, most notably in Social Sciences (ranked 2nd in Algeria), Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), and Mathematics (5th). While the institution's formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—especially concerning retracted publications and output in discontinued journals—challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. These practices could undermine the hard-earned reputation in its areas of strength. The university is encouraged to leverage its clear capacity for effective governance to develop targeted interventions for its high-risk areas, thereby creating a more balanced and resilient integrity framework.
The institution demonstrates effective management of multiple affiliation practices, with a Z-score of 0.674, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.936. This suggests that the university has a more controlled approach to a risk that is common within the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's moderate rate indicates a differentiated management style that successfully moderates the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, a practice that appears more prevalent at the national level.
This indicator represents a critical area of concern, as the institution's Z-score of 0.925 is not only at a significant risk level but also markedly higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.771. This pattern suggests an accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this high alerts to a potential systemic failure in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Beyond individual cases of honest error, this value suggests a 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 safeguard its reputation.
The university exhibits strong control over self-citation practices, with a Z-score of 0.263, far below the national average of 0.909. This indicates a differentiated management approach that effectively moderates a risk that is common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates a successful avoidance of scientific 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation. This commitment to external scrutiny ensures that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution shows a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.519, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.157. This indicates that the university is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of output in such channels constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination venues. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and indicating an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.953, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for hyper-authorship, though it is slightly higher than the national baseline of -1.105. This slight difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this signal serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially dilutive 'honorary' authorship.
The university displays a high exposure to impact dependency, with a Z-score of 0.254, which is significantly larger than the national average of 0.081. This wide positive gap—where global impact is higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary standard in this area, with a Z-score of -1.110 that indicates a complete absence of risk signals, even below the low national average of -0.967. This total operational silence shows that the university's governance effectively prevents the potential imbalances between quantity and quality associated with extreme publication volumes. By mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, the institution strongly upholds the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's policy on publishing in its own journals is in perfect alignment with the national standard, with both sharing a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution prevents potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing its commitment to standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a remarkable capacity for preventive isolation from national risk trends in this indicator. While the country context presents a medium risk for redundant publications (Z-score of 0.966), the university's very low Z-score of -0.801 indicates it does not replicate these dynamics. This robust performance suggests that the institution's culture and controls effectively discourage the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units, prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
