| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.869 | 2.983 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.126 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.679 | -0.773 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.961 | 1.338 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.135 | -0.332 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.174 | 1.276 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.807 | -1.123 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.627 | -0.475 |
The University of Khartoum presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.446 reflecting a combination of notable strengths and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Redundant Output and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a robust culture against data fragmentation and academic endogamy. However, significant risks are observed in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, alongside medium-level alerts for Retracted Output and a high dependency on external collaborations for impact. These challenges contrast with the university's dominant position in the national academic landscape, holding top rankings in Sudan across diverse fields such as Engineering, Veterinary, Arts and Humanities, and Computer Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This leadership position is directly challenged by integrity risks that undermine its mission to provide education of the "highest quality" and meet "international standards." The high rates of retractions and dependency on external leadership suggest a gap between current practices and the mission's goal of fostering genuine internal competence and fulfilling societal needs. To secure its legacy and align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the University of Khartoum is advised to leverage its thematic strengths as a foundation for implementing targeted integrity policies that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 2.869 is slightly below the national average of 2.983, placing it within a context of a widespread and critical national dynamic. This indicates that while the rate is significantly high, the university exhibits slightly more control than its national peers, functioning as an attenuated alert within a standard crisis. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The university's position suggests it is immersed in this national practice but is not leading its most extreme forms, presenting an opportunity to pioneer more transparent and mission-aligned affiliation policies within the country.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.126, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.094. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more sensitive to the factors leading to retractions than other institutions in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.679, the University of Khartoum's rate of institutional self-citation is slightly higher than the national average of -0.773, although both are within a low-risk range. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, as the center shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this slight uptick could signal the early stages of a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber,' warning of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation. It warrants a review to ensure the institution's academic influence continues to be driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.961 for publications in discontinued journals is considerably lower than the national average of 1.338. This demonstrates differentiated management, indicating that the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's better performance suggests it has more effective mechanisms for guiding researchers away from media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its resources and reputation from 'predatory' practices more effectively than its peers.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.135, which, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.332. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the university is beginning to show signals of this risk factor more than its national counterparts. When extensive author lists appear outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a review to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and are based on meaningful contributions, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship.
The university exhibits a Z-score of 2.174 in this indicator, significantly higher than the national average of 1.276. This reflects high exposure, showing the center is more prone to this alert signal than its environment. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. The high value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -0.807 for hyperprolific authors, while in the low-risk category, represents a slight divergence from the very low national average of -1.123. This indicates the presence of risk signals at the institution that are largely absent elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes (exceeding 50 articles a year) often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity.
The University of Khartoum's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, perfectly matching the national average. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This very low rate indicates that the institution is not overly dependent on its in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice promotes global visibility and ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.627, the institution shows a lower rate of redundant output than the already low national average of -0.475. This signifies total operational silence on this risk indicator, with an absence of signals even below the national average. The data shows no evidence of 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This exemplary performance indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over the volume of outputs, contributing positively to the integrity of the scientific record.
