| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.182 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.465 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.816 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.542 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.031 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.378 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.613 | 0.966 |
Universite Badji Mokhtar - Annaba presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exemplary practice alongside significant vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.837, the institution demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its control over hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, where risks are virtually non-existent. However, this is contrasted by a critical alert regarding the Rate of Retracted Output, which is significantly elevated, and high exposure to risks associated with publication in discontinued journals, impact dependency, and redundant publications. The university's academic strengths are evident in its national rankings, with prominent positions in Arts and Humanities (2nd), Mathematics (4th), Social Sciences (5th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (6th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally challenged by integrity risks. A high rate of retractions, in particular, directly undermines the creation of reliable knowledge. To secure its reputation and the impact of its strongest research areas, the university should leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted interventions, focusing urgently on pre-publication quality assurance and author guidance on selecting reputable dissemination channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.182 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.936. This indicates that the university demonstrates more effective management of a risk that appears to be a common practice within the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's ability to moderate this trend suggests a stronger control over practices that could otherwise be used to strategically inflate institutional credit. This differentiated management points to a more robust and less ambiguous affiliation policy compared to the national standard.
With a Z-score of 2.465, the institution shows a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 0.771. This finding suggests the university is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is actively amplifying it. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is more than a series of isolated incidents; it 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.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.816, which is below the national average of 0.909. This suggests that the university is successfully moderating a risk that is prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines, but the institution's lower rate indicates a healthier balance. This prudent profile helps mitigate the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and suggests that the institution's academic influence is less dependent on internal validation and more reliant on broader recognition from the external scientific community compared to its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of 0.542 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.157, even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This reveals that the university is more exposed and susceptible to this particular risk than its peers. A high proportion of publications in journals that cease to meet international standards is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.031, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -1.105. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While extensive author lists are normal in 'Big Science,' this slight upward trend could, in other fields, be an early indicator of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and continue to reflect genuine intellectual contribution rather than 'honorary' inclusions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.378, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.081. This high exposure indicates that the university is more prone to a specific structural vulnerability. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on building internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a result of the university's own structural strengths.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is not only in the very low-risk category but is also well below the national average of -0.967. This represents an area of exceptional strength and integrity. The complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to an already low national baseline, demonstrates a healthy research culture that effectively balances productivity with quality. This operational silence indicates that the institution is free from the dynamics of extreme individual publication volumes, which can point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This perfect alignment with a secure national environment is a strong indicator of good governance. It shows that the university avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from over-reliance on in-house journals. By ensuring its scientific production primarily undergoes independent external peer review, the institution enhances its global visibility and upholds a commitment to competitive, merit-based validation rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of 1.613, the institution shows a higher risk exposure compared to the national average of 0.966. This suggests that the university is more prone to practices that can artificially inflate productivity metrics. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential fragmentation of coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units.' This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, cohesive new knowledge. A review of authorship and publication guidelines may be necessary to address this vulnerability.
