| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.641 | 2.525 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | 0.367 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.046 | 0.360 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.878 | 0.499 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.136 | -1.066 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.460 | -0.061 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.892 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.274 | 0.289 |
The Université de Jendouba demonstrates a generally robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.114. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and the impact gap, indicating a culture of authentic, internally-driven research. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience by outperforming national risk averages in retractions, self-citation, and redundant publications. However, this strong foundation is compromised by two key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk exposure to discontinued journals and, most critically, a significant-risk rate of multiple affiliations that amplifies a concerning national trend. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in areas such as Psychology (ranked 4th in Tunisia), Business, Management and Accounting (6th), Medicine (6th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (7th). While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risk in affiliation practices could undermine the core academic values of excellence and transparency. By strategically addressing this vulnerability, the Université de Jendouba can protect its reputation, solidify its strong integrity framework, and fully leverage its thematic strengths to achieve its strategic objectives.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.641, a value that indicates a significant risk and substantially exceeds the national average of 2.525. This suggests that the university is not merely participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying it. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert for potential "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The dynamic points to a vulnerability that requires an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive scientific partnerships rather than a pursuit of metric optimization.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, which contrasts positively with the medium-risk level (0.367) observed nationally. This disparity highlights the university's institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider scientific environment. This strong performance indicates a mature integrity culture where potential errors are likely identified and corrected prior to publication, reinforcing the credibility and reliability of its research output.
The university's Z-score of -0.046 places it in the low-risk category, demonstrating effective control compared to the national average of 0.360, which falls into the medium-risk range. This indicates strong institutional resilience against the risk of operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping this rate low, the institution ensures its work is validated by the broader external community, not just through internal dynamics. This suggests that the university's academic influence is based on genuine recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.878 reflects a medium-risk level, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.499, also in the medium-risk category. This indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this risk factor than its peers, suggesting a greater tendency to publish in channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This pattern is a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting publication venues and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational damage and the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.136, indicating a very low-risk level that is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -1.066). This operational silence in a low-risk environment confirms that the university's authorship practices are well-calibrated to disciplinary norms. The absence of this risk signal suggests a healthy culture of transparency and accountability, where author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions and are not inflated by 'honorary' or political practices.
With a Z-score of -1.460, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.061. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and self-reliant. The minimal gap shows that its impact is driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership, not by a dependency on external partners. This reflects a sustainable model for generating high-impact research built on genuine internal capacity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a stronger position than the already low-risk national average of -0.892. This alignment with a low-risk environment signals a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, with both falling into the very low-risk category. This perfect integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. It shows that the university, like its national peers, avoids over-reliance on its own journals, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest and ensuring its research undergoes independent, external peer review for global validation and visibility.
The university exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.274, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.289. This difference highlights the institution's resilience in managing publication practices. By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap, the university effectively resists the pressure to engage in 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of studies to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant findings enhances the quality of the scientific record and demonstrates respect for the academic review system.
