| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.545 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.085 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.525 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.679 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.122 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.240 | 0.966 |
Universite d'Alger 1 presents a balanced integrity profile with an overall score of 0.042, characterized by significant strengths in core research practices alongside specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over internal quality mechanisms, with very low risk signals in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results suggest a robust culture of integrity and responsible conduct. However, vulnerabilities emerge in collaborative and dissemination strategies, with medium-risk indicators for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyper-Authored Output, and a notable Gap between total and led-research impact. These challenges are juxtaposed with clear thematic leadership, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where the university holds the #1 national position in Medicine, alongside strong rankings in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Mathematics. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to impact dependency and publication in low-quality journals—could undermine universal academic goals of excellence and long-term societal contribution. To secure its leadership and reputation, the university is advised to leverage its foundational integrity by developing targeted policies that enhance strategic autonomy, ensure responsible collaboration, and guide researchers toward high-quality dissemination channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.545, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.936. This result indicates that the university is more exposed than its national peers to practices associated with multiple affiliations. While these are often a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's heightened signal in this area suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and transparently credit contributions, thereby safeguarding institutional reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in this area, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.771). This indicates that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and function preventively. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible correction of honest errors; however, the near-total absence of such events, in contrast to the national trend, strongly suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are successfully filtering out potential methodological flaws or malpractice, reinforcing a culture of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.085 is exceptionally low, positioning it as a model of best practice when compared to the national average of 0.909. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risk of endogamous citation patterns prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader international scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact artificially. This result points to a healthy, externally-focused research culture where academic influence is earned through global recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.525 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.157, signaling a high exposure to this particular risk. This suggests that the university's researchers are more prone than their national counterparts to publishing in channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination venues. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent need to enhance information literacy and implement stricter guidelines to prevent the channeling of valuable research into predatory or low-quality outlets.
The institution displays a Z-score of 0.679, a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -1.105. This divergence suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to inflated author lists than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, their appearance in other contexts can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. This signal warrants a review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for "honorary" or political authorship practices that could compromise transparency and the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of 2.122, the institution shows a much higher exposure to impact dependency compared to the national average of 0.081. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a critical risk to strategic sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. This finding invites deep reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.967. This "total operational silence" is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment where the focus is on quality over excessive quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result suggests that it effectively avoids potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is perfectly aligned with the national average, which is also -0.268. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.240, demonstrating institutional resilience against a practice that is more common at the national level (Z-score: 0.966). This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risk of "salami slicing." While citing previous work is normal, this low score suggests that the institution successfully discourages the artificial fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent findings protects the integrity of the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
