Prince Abubakar Audu University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Prince Abubakar Audu University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.105 that indicates performance near the global average. The institution demonstrates notable strengths and a culture of very low risk in key areas of authorial practice, including an exemplary Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, a negligible Rate of Redundant Output, and minimal reliance on institutional journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention are concentrated in publication and collaboration patterns, with medium-risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and a significant gap between its total research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified medium-risk indicators could challenge any HEI's commitment to academic excellence and sustainable growth. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, Prince Abubakar Audu University can better safeguard the credibility of its strongest research fields, ensuring its contributions are both impactful and built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.083, a value that places it in the medium-risk category and is notably higher than the national average of 0.349. This indicates that while the practice is part of a systemic pattern in the country, the university shows a greater propensity for it than its peers. This high exposure warrants a review of collaboration policies. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can dilute the perceived contribution of the university to collaborative work.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.121. This divergence suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider environment. This low score is a positive sign of responsible supervision and indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust, effectively preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might suggest.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.051, positioning it in the low-risk category and demonstrating strong performance against the national medium-risk average of 0.437. This indicates effective institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's research culture promotes external validation and engagement over internal reinforcement. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping this rate low, the institution successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.266 for publications in discontinued journals is in the medium-risk range, reflecting a shared challenge at the national level (Z-score: 0.600). However, the university's score is considerably lower than the country's average, pointing to a differentiated management approach that moderates this risk more effectively than its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert, and while the university's risk is moderate, it still indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational risks and the misallocation of resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.694, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile for hyper-authored publications, performing even better than the national standard, which also sits in the low-risk category (Z-score: -0.427). This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national average. This is a positive indicator of good governance, showing that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.579 in this indicator, a medium-risk value that is higher than the national average of 1.206. This suggests that the university is more exposed than its national peers to the risks associated with a dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This result suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university shows a Z-score of -1.413, placing it in the very low-risk category, a stronger position than the already low-risk national average of -0.511. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard, points to a well-regulated academic environment. The data suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' and reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This perfect integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The university avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, thereby mitigating potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution has a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a very low risk of redundant output, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.459. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the problematic risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high value in this indicator typically points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. The university's excellent performance here shows a strong commitment to publishing significant new knowledge over artificially increasing publication volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.