| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.745 | 0.715 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.550 | 0.536 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.972 | 0.086 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.521 | 1.371 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.498 | 0.393 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.559 | 1.102 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.274 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.832 | 0.426 |
Al-Azhar University Gaza presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity, underscored by an overall risk score of 0.040. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over critical areas such as retracted publications, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals, indicating robust internal governance that often surpasses national standards. Thematic strengths, evidenced by high national rankings in Chemistry and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, highlight focused areas of academic excellence. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by a significant vulnerability: a substantial gap between the impact of its total output and that of research led by its own staff. This dependency on external leadership, coupled with medium-level risks in self-citation and redundant output, poses a direct challenge to its mission of fostering "sustainable development" and "applied scientific research." These integrity signals suggest that while the university's collaborative output is strong, its internal scientific "authenticity" and leadership capacity require strategic reinforcement to ensure its long-term mission of community service is built on a foundation of genuine, self-sustaining academic excellence. A strategic focus on cultivating intellectual leadership and refining publication ethics will be crucial for aligning its operational reality with its aspirational goals.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.745, positioning it favorably against the national average of 0.715. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation practices that are more prevalent at the country level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's low score indicates that it successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retractions, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.536. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Such a low score is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust quality control mechanisms prior to publication. It suggests that, unlike the national trend, the institution's integrity culture is effectively preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures and subsequent retractions.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.972, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.086, despite both falling within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high level of exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to this risk than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score of 0.521 is notably lower than the national average of 1.371, indicating a more cautious approach to publication channels. This reflects a differentiated management strategy, where the institution successfully moderates risks that appear more common across the country. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. The university's more controlled score suggests it is less exposed to the severe reputational risks associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 0.498, the institution shows a slightly higher tendency for hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of 0.393. This suggests a higher exposure to the associated risks, pointing to a need for closer examination of authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high score outside these fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a signal for the institution to ensure its collaborative practices are genuinely necessary and not a reflection of 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.559, a significant risk level that starkly accentuates the vulnerability observed at the national level (1.102). This critical gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and is not yet structurally rooted in its own intellectual leadership. While it is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, such a wide positive gap signals a serious sustainability risk. It invites urgent reflection on whether the institution's high-impact metrics result from its own internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual control, potentially undermining its long-term research autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.274. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university avoids the national trend towards hyper-productivity. This is a significant strength, as extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
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 a very low-risk area indicates that neither the university nor the country relies excessively on in-house journals for dissemination. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By shunning academic endogamy, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 1.832 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.426, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity may be more prevalent at the university than elsewhere in the country. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications, as signaled by this high value, distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This finding warrants a review of publication strategies to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
