Tabuk University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Tabuk University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a commendable ability to manage certain national risk trends while showing heightened exposure in others. With an overall integrity score of 0.804, the institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over hyperprolific authorship and its minimal reliance on institutional journals, indicating a strong foundation in authorship ethics and a commitment to external validation. However, several medium-risk indicators, particularly concerning self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, are more pronounced than the national average. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the university's mission to provide a "distinguished" and "exceptional" educational and research environment. The institution's notable academic strengths, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are concentrated in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 9th nationally), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (14th), and both Mathematics and Veterinary sciences (15th). To protect and enhance these areas of excellence, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its internal governance and quality assurance frameworks. By proactively addressing the identified risks, Tabuk University can ensure its pursuit of innovative research and community development is built upon a solid and unimpeachable foundation of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of 1.179, compared to the national average of 0.704, the university demonstrates a higher propensity for multiple affiliations than its national peers. This indicates a greater exposure to the associated risks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this heightened rate suggests that the institution is more prone to practices like strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. This pattern warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than metric-driven strategies.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 1.131, which, while indicating a significant risk level, is notably lower than the national average of 1.274. This suggests that although the university operates within a nationally critical context for this indicator, it exercises more effective control than its peers. This attenuated alert is a positive sign of relative resilience. Nevertheless, a high rate of retractions points to a systemic vulnerability in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. It suggests that beyond isolated incidents, there may be a recurring lack of methodological rigor or potential malpractice that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard the integrity of its research culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.202 for institutional self-citation is considerably higher than the national benchmark of 0.060. This reveals a high exposure to practices that can lead to scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate warns of the potential for creating 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks an endogamous inflation of academic impact, suggesting that the university's influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.287, the university's rate of publication in discontinued journals exceeds the national average of 1.132. This elevated figure constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the university to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.684, which is slightly higher than the national score of -0.763. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows subtle signals of risk activity that are otherwise minimal in its context. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this minor deviation warrants a proactive review. It serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors have made meaningful contributions, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The university's Z-score of 0.555 for this indicator is higher than the national average of 0.491, signaling a greater dependency on external partners for its research impact. This high exposure suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more exogenous and less structural compared to its peers. A wide gap where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low signals a sustainability risk. This invites a strategic reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

Tabuk University demonstrates effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.885 that is significantly lower than the national average of 2.211. This indicates that the institution successfully moderates the risk of hyperprolific authorship, a challenge that appears more common across the country. By curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the university shows a differentiated approach that better balances quantity with quality. This helps mitigate risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 is very low and closely mirrors the national score of -0.234, demonstrating total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This integrity synchrony shows a strong institutional commitment to seeking external, independent peer review for its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.486, the university's rate of redundant output is substantially higher than the national average of 0.188. This high exposure alerts to a greater tendency toward 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This pattern suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, new knowledge over the maximization of output volume.