| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.285 | 2.983 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.484 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.290 | -0.773 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.032 | 1.338 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.202 | -0.332 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.998 | 1.276 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.123 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.475 |
Al Neelain University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a commendable foundation in core research practices alongside critical, high-risk vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.537, the institution shows exceptional control in areas such as retracted output, self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, indicating robust internal mechanisms for quality and ethical oversight. These strengths are foundational. However, they are contrasted by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, most critically, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which significantly exceeds the national average. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to foster scientific development, as they risk channeling valuable research into low-impact or predatory venues and could suggest a focus on metric inflation over genuine collaborative impact. The university's leadership in Sudan, as evidenced by its top national rankings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a powerful platform for influence. To fully align its practices with its mission and its demonstrated thematic excellence, the university should leverage its areas of integrity strength to implement targeted interventions, focusing on enhancing publication literacy and clarifying affiliation policies to ensure its scientific contributions are both credible and impactful.
The university's Z-score of 3.285 for multiple affiliations is not only high but also surpasses the already significant national average of 2.983. This positions the institution as a leader in risk metrics within a national context that is already highly compromised in this area. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This global red flag suggests an urgent need to review authorship and affiliation policies to ensure that they reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than practices aimed at artificially boosting institutional rankings, thereby safeguarding the transparency and accountability of the university's research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.484, the university shows a very low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the national average of -0.094. This excellent result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a high rate often suggests systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university's low score indicates that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and preventing malpractice are effective, reflecting a strong culture of integrity and responsible supervision that protects its scientific record.
The university exhibits a very low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.290, which is significantly below the national average of -0.773. This finding points to a healthy and externally-focused research culture, where the absence of risk signals is more pronounced than in the rest of the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's very low score strongly suggests that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, demonstrating robust external scrutiny and integration into the wider scientific discourse.
The university's Z-score of 3.032 for publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert, as it dramatically exceeds the national average of 1.338. This indicates that the institution is not merely following a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the system. A high proportion of output in such journals is a serious concern regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.202, slightly higher than the national average of -0.332 but still within a low-risk range. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows minor signals that warrant review before they potentially escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's position, though not alarming, calls for proactive monitoring to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish clearly between necessary massive collaboration and honorary attributions.
The university shows a moderate gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research, with a Z-score of 0.998. Notably, this is lower than the national average of 1.276, suggesting a degree of differentiated management. The institution appears to moderate a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's more contained score indicates a healthier balance, but it still invites reflection on strategies to strengthen intellectual leadership and ensure that its high-impact research is increasingly driven by its own structural capabilities.
In the area of hyperprolific authorship, the university demonstrates an exemplary record, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even lower than the national average of -1.123. This result signifies a total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is below the already low national baseline. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's exceptionally low score indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of publications, fostering a healthy and sustainable research environment.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution is not overly reliant on its in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By eschewing the risk of academic endogamy, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The university shows outstanding performance in avoiding redundant publications, with a Z-score of -1.186, significantly better than the national average of -0.475. This indicates a total operational silence, with risk signals being absent even when compared to the low-risk national context. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can suggest 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The university's very low score demonstrates a clear commitment to publishing significant, coherent bodies of work, thereby respecting the scientific record and avoiding practices that prioritize volume over the generation of meaningful new knowledge.
