Islamia College Peshawar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamia College Peshawar presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in internal publication controls but overshadowed by a critical vulnerability in post-publication outcomes. With an overall score of 0.512, the institution demonstrates exemplary management in areas such as the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, Rate of Redundant Output, and Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, indicating robust internal policies that promote originality and responsible authorship. These strengths support the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including its Top 20 position in Earth and Planetary Sciences and Top 40 rankings in Computer Science, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Engineering, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by a significant risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output, which not only exceeds the national average but also directly challenges the core institutional mission to achieve "competency and innovation in... research" with a "strong sense of social responsibility." This discrepancy suggests that while some integrity mechanisms are effective, pre-publication quality assurance may be failing, threatening the very reputation the mission seeks to build. To fully align its practices with its vision, the institution is advised to leverage its proven governance strengths to conduct a thorough review of its research validation and quality control processes, ensuring its scientific output is as resilient and reputable as its foundational principles.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.328 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.021. This suggests that the institution displays a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the observed rate is high enough to warrant a review of internal patterns. This divergence from the national norm could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” making it prudent to verify that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.967, the institution exhibits a critical rate of retractions that significantly surpasses the already high national average of 1.173, representing a global red flag. This situation indicates that the institution is a leading contributor to a risk dynamic that is already compromising the national scientific system. Retractions are complex, but a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, this Z-score alerts to a severe vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires an immediate and deep qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.635, which is well below the national average of -0.059. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this low score is a positive signal that the institution avoids concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting healthy integration into external scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.574, while indicating a medium risk, reflects differentiated management when compared to the national average of 0.812. This shows the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although some exposure exists, the institution's better-than-average performance suggests that its researchers are more discerning, but continued vigilance is necessary to fully avoid channeling work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus prevent reputational damage.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.029, significantly lower than the national average of -0.681, the institution maintains a prudent profile in managing authorship. This demonstrates that its processes are more rigorous than the national standard in this area. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute accountability. The institution's low score is a strong indicator of good governance, suggesting it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby promoting transparency and individual accountability in its research.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution shows effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.184 that is lower than the national average of 0.218. This suggests the institution moderates a risk that is common nationally. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's contained score indicates a healthier balance, suggesting that while it benefits from collaboration, it is also successfully building its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of a dependent and exogenous scientific reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution displays notable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.811 in stark contrast to the national medium-risk score of 0.267. This demonstrates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The institution's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting its policies successfully safeguard the integrity of its scientific record against practices that prioritize metrics over substance.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, which is even lower than the national average of -0.157, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this risk area. This exceptional performance indicates an absence of risk signals and a commitment to external validation. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving robust global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels to bypass standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.878 places it in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the country's low-risk score of -0.339. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals and an alignment with high standards of scientific practice. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The institution's excellent score signals a strong commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than distorting the scientific evidence, thereby upholding the integrity of its research and respecting the peer review system.