| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.500 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.137 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.584 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.378 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.547 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.792 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.014 | 0.188 |
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University demonstrates a solid foundation in scientific integrity, reflected in its overall score of 0.366. The institution exhibits robust control over key risk areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications, often outperforming national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. These integrity metrics are particularly relevant given the University's notable leadership in critical fields, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it ranks among the top 10 in Saudi Arabia for Dentistry, Energy, Environmental Science, and Medicine. The University's mission to provide "creative knowledge, research, and professional services with effective community partnerships" is well-supported by its general integrity profile. However, the identified risks, particularly the reliance on external leadership for impact and the use of low-quality publication channels, could undermine the long-term sustainability of its "creative knowledge" and the credibility of its "professional services." Ensuring that research excellence is both internally generated and disseminated through reputable channels is crucial for fulfilling its mission with full transparency and social responsibility. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can further strengthen its research ecosystem, ensuring its impressive thematic contributions are built upon an unshakeable foundation of scientific integrity and strategic autonomy.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.500 in this indicator, contrasting with the national average of 0.704. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal policies effectively mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the University's controlled approach helps prevent strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is claimed with precision, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the University maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, effectively acting as a firewall against a significant risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 1.274). This strong performance indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning exceptionally well. A rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture, but this result suggests a robust system that prevents recurring malpractice or methodological flaws from reaching the publication stage, thereby safeguarding its scientific reputation.
The institution's rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.137) is notably lower than the national average (Z-score: 0.060), demonstrating strong institutional resilience against practices that can lead to academic isolation. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research, the University's profile suggests its work is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-reference. This indicates that its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The University's rate of publication in discontinued journals is a point of concern, with a Z-score of 1.584 that is higher than the national average of 1.132. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it suggests that a significant portion of research is channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into predatory or low-impact practices.
The institution's rate of hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -0.378, is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.763. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, a rising trend can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and clearly distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially "honorary" attributions.
The University exhibits a significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of the research it leads, with a Z-score of 1.547 that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.491. This high exposure to dependency risk suggests that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific prestige is contingent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a long-term risk to its scientific sustainability and autonomy.
The University demonstrates effective, differentiated management in moderating the presence of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of 0.792 that is substantially lower than the national average of 2.211. This indicates that the institution is successfully mitigating a risk that appears more common in the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's controlled rate suggests a healthier balance between quantity and quality, reducing the risk of practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The University's rate of publication in its own journals is exceptionally low (Z-score: -0.268), showing total integrity synchrony with the national environment (Z-score: -0.234) and reflecting an environment of maximum scientific security. This demonstrates a clear commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review and is not channeled through internal "fast tracks" to inflate CVs.
The institution shows strong resilience against the practice of redundant publication, with a Z-score of -0.014 that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.188. This suggests that its research culture effectively discourages data fragmentation or "salami slicing." A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a low rate, the University promotes the dissemination of significant, coherent studies, thereby contributing robustly to the scientific record and respecting the integrity of the peer-review system.
