| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.275 | -0.220 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.311 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.380 | -0.125 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.469 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.797 | 0.010 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.656 | 0.186 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.715 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.319 | 0.719 |
The Jerusalem College of Technology - Lev Academic Center demonstrates a robust overall profile in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.374 indicating performance that is healthier than the international average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low-risk indicators for Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, signaling strong governance and quality control. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, a notable Gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research, and a moderate signal for Redundant Output. These risk factors, while not critical, warrant proactive management. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the Center's academic strengths are particularly pronounced in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Social Sciences, where it holds competitive national and regional positions. While the institution's specific mission was not provided for this analysis, any mission centered on academic excellence and societal contribution is fundamentally supported by a culture of integrity. The identified medium-risk areas could, if left unaddressed, subtly undermine this foundation of trust and excellence. Therefore, a focused effort to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities will not only enhance the institution's integrity profile but also more deeply align its operational practices with its clear academic strengths, ensuring a sustainable and reputable future.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.275, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.220. This suggests that the center displays a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The observed divergence warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, a performance consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.311). Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average, as seen here, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This exemplary record suggests a strong institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where responsible supervision and sound research practices prevent the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.380 that is considerably lower than the national average of -0.125. This indicates that the center manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, actively avoiding patterns of excessive self-reference. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this institution's low rate mitigates the risk of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers', suggesting its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the external scientific community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.545 that is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.469. This complete absence of risk signals indicates an exemplary due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. This performance demonstrates that the institution's scientific production is consistently channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, effectively protecting it from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices and ensuring research resources are not wasted.
A clear sign of institutional resilience is visible in this indicator, where the center's low-risk Z-score of -0.797 contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national Z-score of 0.010. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', this institution’s performance outside those contexts indicates a successful effort to prevent author list inflation. This upholds individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 0.656 that is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.186. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. While partnering is crucial, this imbalance invites strategic reflection on whether the center's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations led by others. Strengthening internal research leadership would be key to ensuring long-term scientific autonomy.
The institution maintains an excellent low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.413 indicating a virtual absence of hyperprolific authors, well below the already low national average of -0.715. This aligns perfectly with a healthy and secure academic environment. Such a low indicator suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity. It effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
There is a clear integrity synchrony between the institution and its national context, with both sharing an identical Z-score of -0.268. This total alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this practice. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, fostering global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.319 that is notably lower than the national average of 0.719. This indicates that while operating in an environment where redundant output is a common issue, the center applies more effective controls to moderate this practice. A high value in this indicator typically alerts to the fragmentation of studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's ability to contain this trend suggests a greater commitment to publishing significant, coherent knowledge over prioritizing volume.
