| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.006 | 0.836 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 0.101 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.404 | 1.075 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.751 | 2.544 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.885 | -0.808 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.586 | 0.170 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.428 | 0.332 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.610 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.264 | 0.522 |
Amman Arab University demonstrates a commendable overall scientific integrity profile, with a low aggregate risk score of 1.342 that positions it favorably against national trends. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining intellectual leadership and avoiding academic endogamy, as evidenced by very low-risk indicators for the impact gap and publication in institutional journals. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two key vulnerabilities: a critical rate of publication in discontinued journals, which represents a severe reputational and resource allocation risk, and a moderate, though concerning, rate of hyperprolific authorship. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly pronounced in Engineering, where it ranks first in Jordan, the Middle East, and the Arab Countries, as well as in Computer Science (first in Jordan) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (second in Jordan). While these achievements align with its mission to provide "outstanding... scientific research," the identified risk of publishing in low-quality journals directly threatens the "quality" and community service components of this mission. By addressing this specific vulnerability, the university can ensure its operational practices fully reflect its stated commitment to excellence and comprehensive development, solidifying its leadership position in the region.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.006, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.836. This contrast suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed at the national level. The institution's low score indicates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of partnerships, the university's contained rate demonstrates strong governance that prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby preserving the clarity and integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that stands in positive contrast to the national average of 0.101. This indicates a resilient pre-publication quality control system that appears to be more robust than the national standard. The university's performance suggests that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor are effective, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high number of retractions. This low rate reflects a culture of integrity where potential errors are likely addressed before publication, reinforcing the institution's commitment to producing reliable and high-quality scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.404, a low-risk value that is substantially healthier than the national average of 1.075. This demonstrates a strong institutional resilience against the national trend toward academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate confirms that its research is validated by the broader international community rather than relying on internal "echo chambers." This practice of seeking external scrutiny is a hallmark of a globally integrated and confident research program, ensuring its academic influence is based on widespread recognition, not endogamous dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 7.751, a critical value that significantly amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 2.544). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to implement information literacy programs and stricter publication policies to avoid wasting intellectual and financial resources on predatory or low-quality outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -0.885 is slightly lower than the national average of -0.808, both of which fall within the low-risk category. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with slightly more rigor than the national standard. The data indicates that the institution's collaborative patterns are well-aligned with disciplinary norms, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary or political authorship. This reflects a healthy approach to transparency and accountability in assigning credit for research.
With a Z-score of -1.586, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the national trend, which shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.170. This exceptional result signals robust and sustainable internal research capacity. A negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is high, proving that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners for validation. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where the university exercises true intellectual leadership, a key driver of long-term academic excellence.
The institution's Z-score of 0.428 is slightly higher than the national average of 0.332, indicating a higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. This moderate alert warrants a closer examination of individual productivity patterns within the university. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, signaling risks such as coercive authorship or the division of studies into minimal units, which prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that signifies a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.610). This result indicates that the university does not rely on its own journals for publication, a practice that reinforces its commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent, competitive peer review. This strategy mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and prevents the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without standard validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.264 places it in the low-risk category, showcasing its resilience against the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.522). This suggests that the university's research culture effectively discourages the practice of data fragmentation or "salami slicing." The low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications indicates that its authors prioritize the communication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity. This commitment to generating substantial new knowledge strengthens the scientific record and reflects responsible stewardship of research resources.
