Jadara University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jadara University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall risk score of 1.428 reflecting both areas of exceptional scientific integrity and significant vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic intervention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its remarkable scientific autonomy, demonstrated by a very low dependency on external collaborations for impact and a commendable avoidance of academic endogamy through institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation of internal capacity. However, this positive outlook is critically undermined by significant-risk indicators in Institutional Self-Citation (Z-score: 5.352) and Output in Discontinued Journals (Z-score: 5.998). These practices suggest a degree of academic isolation and a potential compromise on publication quality that directly conflict with the university's stated mission to "meet global standards of Excellence in Research" and pursue "Internationalization." While the university shows outstanding leadership in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked #1 in Jordan), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (#1 in Jordan), and Social Sciences (#3 in Jordan), the identified integrity risks threaten to devalue these achievements and hinder its pursuit of international accreditation. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that Jadara University leverage its proven internal leadership to implement a rigorous publication and citation strategy focused on high-quality, externally validated, and globally recognized outlets.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.539 for this indicator places it at a medium risk level, a category it shares with the national average of 0.836. However, the university's score is notably higher, suggesting it is more prone than its peers to practices that could signal risk. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened exposure warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and do not represent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

Jadara University demonstrates strong institutional resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.277 that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.101. This suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions, especially when the surrounding environment shows greater vulnerability, is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review processes that uphold the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

This indicator presents a critical alert for the institution. Its Z-score of 5.352 is at a significant risk level, drastically amplifying the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (1.075). A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning degree of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of severe endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community, a practice that directly undermines its internationalization goals.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This is another area of significant concern, with the institution's Z-score of 5.998 far exceeding the already problematic national average of 2.544. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter publication policies to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that damage its credibility.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.786 is low and closely aligned with the national average of -0.808, indicating a normal and healthy pattern of co-authorship. This statistical normality suggests that authorship practices at the university are consistent with its context and do not show signs of author list inflation. The data reflects that collaborations are likely genuine and appropriate for the disciplines involved, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

This indicator reveals a key institutional strength. With a very low-risk Z-score of -2.700, the university demonstrates a preventive isolation from the national trend (0.170), which shows a moderate dependency on external partners for impact. This result signals a remarkable degree of scientific autonomy and robust internal capacity. The institution's scientific prestige appears to be structural and not dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, indicating that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and a sustainable research model.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.277 indicates a medium risk level, which is consistent with the national pattern (0.332). However, the university's slightly lower score suggests a differentiated management approach that moderates this risk more effectively than its national peers. While extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, the data shows a degree of control. Continued monitoring is advisable to ensure a balance between quantity and quality and to prevent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates exemplary practice in this area, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268. This performance is particularly noteworthy when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.610, showing a clear preventive isolation from risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By not depending on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production does not bypass independent external peer review. This commitment enhances global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 1.270, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.522, even though both are within the medium-risk category. This suggests the university is more prone to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. A high value alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' a practice that can distort the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. A review of publication strategies is recommended to ensure that research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over sheer volume.