| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.404 | 2.983 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.465 | -0.094 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.580 | -0.773 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.044 | 1.338 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.695 | -0.332 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.854 | 1.276 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.123 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.329 | -0.475 |
Omdurman Islamic University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.354 reflecting both areas of exceptional scientific rigor and specific, significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates a robust and commendable culture of integrity in core areas such as the near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, minimal institutional self-citation, and a negligible rate of retracted publications. These strengths indicate a solid foundation in research ethics and quality control. However, this is offset by critical challenges, primarily a high rate of multiple affiliations that exceeds an already compromised national average, and a concerning exposure to discontinued journals. The university's strong thematic positioning, evidenced by its national leadership (ranking 2nd in Sudan according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data) in key fields like Medicine and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, is a testament to its research capacity. Yet, the identified risks, particularly those related to affiliation strategies and publication channel selection, could undermine the credibility of this excellence. To safeguard its reputation and align its practices with its academic achievements, the university should leverage its foundational strengths to develop targeted policies that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research impact is both sustainable and unimpeachable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.404, which is notably higher than the national average of 2.983. This situation represents a critical concern, as the university is not only participating in a high-risk national trend but is actively leading it. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a high rate signals a potential systemic issue. The data suggests a strong possibility of strategic practices designed to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where researchers leverage multiple institutional names to maximize visibility or funding opportunities. This dynamic poses a direct threat to institutional transparency and the fair attribution of scientific work, requiring an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than metric-driven inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.465, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the country's low-risk average of -0.094. This result is a strong positive indicator of the university's scientific integrity. The absence of significant retraction signals suggests that the quality control mechanisms in place prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance aligns with the principles of responsible supervision and the honest correction of the scientific record, reflecting a healthy research culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, thereby preventing the systemic failures that often lead to post-publication withdrawals.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -1.580, a figure that indicates a very low risk and is significantly below the national average of -0.773. This demonstrates a commendable level of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain degree of self-citation is normal, but the institution's extremely low rate effectively dismisses any concerns about scientific isolation or the creation of 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the university's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the wider research community, rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics, which reinforces the credibility and external relevance of its work.
The institution's Z-score of 2.044 for publications in discontinued journals is a point of concern, as it is notably higher than the national average of 1.338. Although this risk is common within the country, the university shows a greater propensity for it. This high exposure constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The data indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice not only exposes the institution to severe reputational risks but also suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources into 'predatory' or low-impact publishing.
With a Z-score of -0.695, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in hyper-authored output, demonstrating more rigorous control than the national standard, which has a score of -0.332. This prudent approach to authorship is a positive sign. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines where large author lists are common, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's controlled rate suggests that it is effectively managing authorship practices, distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorships, thus preserving the transparency and integrity of its research contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.854 in this indicator, reflecting a moderate gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This value is healthier than the national average of 1.276, suggesting a more balanced approach. While it is common for institutions to build impact through collaboration, a wide gap can signal a risk of dependency on external partners. The university's ability to moderate this national trend indicates a stronger internal capacity for generating high-impact research. This suggests that its scientific prestige is less reliant on exogenous factors and is increasingly rooted in its own structural capabilities, though continued efforts to strengthen intellectual leadership are warranted.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, and is even more robust than the country's already low-risk average of -1.123. This is a clear indicator of a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's data shows a total operational silence in this area, suggesting a culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over sheer volume, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average, which also stands at -0.268. This synchrony reflects a shared commitment to scientific security and best practices across the country. The data shows that the university does not excessively depend on its in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and mitigates the risk of academic endogamy or using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.329, which corresponds to a low level of risk. However, this figure diverges slightly from the national context, where the country's Z-score of -0.475 indicates a near-absence of this issue. This slight divergence warrants attention. While the risk is not high, the appearance of signals for redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' in an environment where they are otherwise non-existent suggests the potential emergence of practices aimed at artificially inflating productivity. This could involve dividing a single coherent study into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts the scientific evidence base. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure it does not escalate.
