| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.466 | 0.164 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.334 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.327 | -0.206 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.186 | 3.057 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.990 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.072 | 0.457 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.580 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.119 | 0.314 |
Damascus University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.463, the institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, such as a near-zero incidence of hyperprolific authorship and minimal reliance on institutional journals, indicating a strong foundation for research ethics. These strengths are critical as they support the university's prominent leadership role within the Syrian Arab Republic, evidenced by its top national rankings in crucial fields like Dentistry, Medicine, Arts and Humanities, and Environmental Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this leadership is jeopardized by a critical-level rate of publication in discontinued journals, a practice that not only mirrors a national trend but exceeds it. This, combined with high exposure to redundant publications and multiple affiliations, directly challenges the "core values and strategic objectives" outlined in its mission. To safeguard its long-term vision and reputation, Damascus University must leverage its internal strengths to implement rigorous quality control and publication guidance, ensuring its recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.466, while the national average is 0.164. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the institution shows a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests a high exposure to the risks associated with multiple affiliations. While often legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's higher score compared to its national peers warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration rather than a strategy for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution's rate of retractions is low and broadly in line with the national average of -0.334. However, the slightly higher value points to an incipient vulnerability. While the current level does not indicate a systemic problem, it serves as a reminder that retractions are complex events. A rate that begins to diverge from the norm can suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be under strain. This signal warrants proactive monitoring to ensure that the integrity culture remains strong and that any potential for recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor is addressed before it escalates.
The university exhibits a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.327 against a low-risk country average of -0.206. This indicates a greater sensitivity at the institutional level to practices that can foster scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, the university's elevated rate signals a potential over-reliance on internal validation, creating 'echo chambers' that may inflate its perceived impact without sufficient external scrutiny from the global scientific community. This dynamic warrants a strategic review to encourage broader engagement and external validation of its work.
The institution's Z-score of 3.186 is a global red flag, positioning it as a leader in a risk metric that is already critical for the country (Z-score: 3.057). This indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. It is imperative to implement urgent information literacy and quality assurance policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications and to protect the university's academic standing.
Damascus University demonstrates a prudent profile in managing authorship, with a Z-score of -0.990, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.763. This commendable result indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, the university reinforces a culture of individual accountability and transparency, mitigating the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of scholarly contribution.
The institution displays notable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.072, effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is present at the national level (Z-score: 0.457). While the country data suggests a general dependency on external partners for achieving impact, the university's balanced score indicates that its scientific prestige is not merely dependent and exogenous but is supported by strong internal capacity. This demonstrates that Damascus University exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its excellence metrics are a true reflection of its structural capabilities and contributing to its long-term sustainability.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 signifies an almost total absence of risk signals in this area, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.580. This low-profile consistency is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution demonstrates a focus on quality over quantity, effectively preventing potential integrity issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This reinforces the credibility of its scientific record and promotes a sustainable and meaningful approach to academic productivity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in maintaining a very low dependence on its own journals is a sign of robust academic governance. It shows a clear commitment to seeking independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice is crucial for ensuring that its research is validated against global standards, which in turn enhances its international visibility and credibility.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.119, which is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.314. This suggests that within a system already prone to this behavior, the university is more likely to exhibit practices of data fragmentation. A high value alerts to the risk that coherent studies may be being divided into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant and impactful new knowledge.
