Canadian University of Dubai

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Canadian University of Dubai presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.259, the institution demonstrates robust control in areas such as hyperprolific authorship, retracted output, and multiple affiliations, where it performs significantly better than the national average. These strengths are particularly evident in its very low rate of publication in institutional journals. However, this positive performance is offset by two significant risks: a high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a critical level of redundant output (salami slicing), which is the most pressing issue. Thematically, the university shows strong positioning in several key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Mathematics (ranked 6th in the UAE), Social Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Computer Science. These areas of academic strength are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The mission to promote "Canadian perspectives in learning, research and application" is undermined when research practices suggest a prioritization of quantity over quality, as seen in the salami slicing and discontinued journal indicators. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, the university is advised to undertake a strategic review of its publication and research evaluation policies, reinforcing its commitment to excellence and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.590 contrasts sharply with the national average of 1.157, indicating a high degree of institutional resilience against a systemic national trend. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the university's controlled rate suggests it is effectively mitigating the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, which appear more prevalent at the national level. This demonstrates strong internal governance and a clear policy on authorship and affiliation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the university demonstrates institutional resilience, performing better than the national average of 0.057. This low rate suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly below the national standard indicates that the university is likely preventing the kind of systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate would imply, thereby safeguarding its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.555, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.199. This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, the university's low rate demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, successfully avoiding the "echo chambers" or endogamous impact inflation that can arise from disproportionately high rates of internal validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.525 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.432. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to publishing in questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.824, well below the national average of -0.474, the institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding authorship practices. This suggests that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the university's low rate outside these contexts indicates a healthy approach to authorship, effectively mitigating the risk of author list inflation and ensuring that credit reflects genuine contribution rather than "honorary" or political practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.545, which is higher than the national average of 0.219, indicates a high exposure to dependency risk. This score reveals a notable gap where the university's overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of the research it leads. This suggests that its scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a long-term sustainability risk.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university displays strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.269 that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.351. This suggests that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national trend. While high productivity can evidence leadership, the university's low rate indicates it is successfully avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony in this area. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals. By not relying on in-house publications, it sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility rather than using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate CVs.

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator presents a critical finding. The institution's Z-score of 3.501 is exceptionally high, significantly accentuating a vulnerability that is only moderately present in the national system (Z-score 0.194). This high value is a strong alert for the practice of "salami slicing," where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system. The severity of this signal suggests an urgent need to review publication strategies to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.