| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.984 | 0.557 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.097 | 0.138 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.225 | -0.176 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.666 | -0.149 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.321 | 0.373 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.231 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.215 | -0.683 |
The University of Dar es Salaam demonstrates a robust and healthy scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.253. This indicates that its research practices are generally well-aligned with international standards, with notable strengths in controlling hyperprolific authorship and output in institutional journals. However, areas of moderate risk, specifically in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between total and led research impact, require strategic attention. The institution's academic leadership is evident from its top national rankings in key disciplines such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, Engineering, and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This strong performance directly supports its mission to pursue research for the “sustainable socio-economic development of Tanzania.” To fully realize this mission, it is crucial to address the identified moderate risks, as they could potentially undermine the perception of genuine internal capacity and sustainable excellence. By proactively managing these vulnerabilities, the University can fortify its position as a leader in African scholarship and ensure its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The University of Dar es Salaam shows a Z-score of 0.984, which is notably higher than the national average for Tanzania of 0.557. This suggests a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's higher score warrants a review of its affiliation policies to ensure they consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than practices of “affiliation shopping” that could dilute institutional identity.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.353, a value lower than the national average of -0.155. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate, especially one below the national average, is a positive signal. It indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms and supervisory practices are functioning effectively, reflecting a healthy integrity culture that minimizes the risk of systemic methodological failures or recurring malpractice.
With a Z-score of -0.097, the university demonstrates a lower rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 0.138. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate indicates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This suggests the institution's academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or insular citation dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.225 is statistically similar to the national average of -0.176, indicating a level of risk that is as expected for its context. This reflects a state of statistical normality in the selection of publication venues. Sporadic presence in discontinued journals may occur, but the current low rate suggests that researchers are generally exercising adequate due diligence. Continued vigilance and training in information literacy are recommended to maintain this low-risk profile and ensure institutional resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.666, which is significantly lower than the Tanzanian average of -0.149. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting the university manages authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a strong indicator of good governance. It signals that the institution effectively discourages author list inflation and promotes transparency and accountability, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The university's Z-score of 0.321 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.373, indicating a systemic pattern shared at the national level. This score reflects a moderate gap where the institution's overall impact is higher than the impact of the research it leads. This pattern suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being fully generated by its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a key consideration for long-term sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is lower than the already very low national average of -1.231. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals even below the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's exceptionally low score is a testament to a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The University of Dar es Salaam has a Z-score of -0.268, which is identical to the national average. This perfect alignment with a very low-risk environment represents integrity synchrony. While in-house journals can be valuable, the university's minimal reliance on them avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility rather than being limited to internal 'fast tracks'.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.215, while the national average is significantly lower at -0.683. This represents a slight divergence, as the institution shows low-level signals of this risk activity that are largely absent in the rest of the country. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a single study into 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity. Although the university's risk level is low, its divergence from the national norm suggests a nascent vulnerability that warrants monitoring to ensure research outputs consistently represent significant new knowledge rather than fragmented data.
