Umm Al-Qura University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Umm Al-Qura University presents a profile of moderate overall risk (Overall Score: 0.487), characterized by significant strengths in research governance alongside specific, pronounced vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas such as the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals and the Rate of Retracted Output, where it effectively insulates itself from national trends, indicating robust internal quality assurance. However, areas of concern emerge in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a notable Gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds leadership, suggesting a dependency on external partners. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific strengths are concentrated in key areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 5th in Saudi Arabia), Dentistry (7th), Computer Science (8th), and Mathematics (8th). These achievements align with its mission to provide "distinctive scientific education and research." Nevertheless, the identified risks, particularly the reliance on external leadership for impact, could challenge the long-term sustainability of this "distinctive" contribution and its role in developing a knowledge-based economy. To fully realize its mission and the goals of Saudi Vision 2030, the university should leverage its proven governance strengths to strategically address these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its academic prestige is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and scientific leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.026 is moderately higher than the national average of 0.704, indicating a greater exposure to this particular risk dynamic compared to its peers. This suggests that while multiple affiliations are a common feature of the national academic landscape, the university is more prone to showing alert signals. While often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This heightened exposure warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and contribute meaningfully to the university's research ecosystem, rather than simply amplifying its presence in bibliometric databases.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retractions, acting as an effective filter against a risk that is significant at the national level (Country Z-score: 1.274). This stark contrast suggests the university's quality control mechanisms are a firewall against the systemic issues observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can be complex, but a rate this far below the global average is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the institution's integrity culture and pre-publication supervision are robust, effectively preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting its environment, thereby safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits considerable resilience against systemic risks, with a low Z-score of -0.062 in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.060. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a tendency potentially present in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate suggests it is avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a healthy integration with the global research community, where its work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than relying on internal dynamics, thus ensuring its academic influence is a reflection of genuine global recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 1.506 is notably higher than the national average of 1.132, signaling a high exposure to the risks associated with publishing in substandard venues. This pattern suggests the institution is more vulnerable than its national counterparts to channeling research into outlets that fail to meet international standards. 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 directed to media that may be 'predatory' or of low quality, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.807, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.763. This low-risk signal indicates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater care than the national average. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a positive indicator. It suggests the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.

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

With a Z-score of 1.740, the institution shows a significantly higher exposure to this risk indicator compared to the national average of 0.491. This very wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This high value invites critical reflection on whether its strong excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. This dependency could undermine its long-term goal of building a self-sufficient, knowledge-based economy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates differentiated management of hyperprolificacy, with a Z-score of 0.863 that is considerably lower than the national average of 2.211. This shows that the university effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's more controlled rate suggests a healthier balance between quantity and quality, pointing away from risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator, falling even below the very low national average of -0.234. This is a clear area of strength, demonstrating a complete absence of risk signals related to academic endogamy. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice eliminates potential conflicts of interest, enhances global visibility, and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks.'

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.078, the institution shows differentiated management of this risk, maintaining a level significantly lower than the national average of 0.188. This indicates that the university moderates the practice of data fragmentation more effectively than its peers. A lower value in this indicator suggests a reduced tendency toward 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By discouraging this practice, the institution promotes the publication of more significant, coherent knowledge, thereby strengthening the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.