| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.019 | 2.525 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.756 | 0.367 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.177 | 0.360 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.457 | 0.499 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.349 | -1.066 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.785 | -0.061 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.892 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.416 | 0.289 |
The Universite de Kairouan presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a significant divergence between areas of commendable practice and zones of high risk, reflected in an overall score of 1.175. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining low rates of hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and output in institutional journals, suggesting robust internal controls in authorship and publication channel selection. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities, particularly significant rates of multiple affiliations and retracted output, which far exceed national averages. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these high-risk indicators pose a fundamental threat to any university's core objectives of achieving research excellence and upholding social responsibility. The detected patterns, especially those suggesting a systemic amplification of national risks, could undermine the credibility of its strong academic areas, such as its nationally prominent programs in Environmental Science (ranked 2nd in Tunisia), Energy (6th), and Chemistry (10th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. A strategic focus on reinforcing pre-publication quality control and clarifying affiliation policies is essential to align its operational practices with its academic potential and safeguard its long-term reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.019, a value that indicates a significant risk level and is substantially higher than the national average of 2.525. This suggests that the university not only participates in a national trend but actively amplifies it, showing a greater propensity for this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal systemic attempts to strategically inflate institutional credit or a culture of “affiliation shopping” among researchers, a practice that can distort the university's perceived contribution to the scientific landscape and requires a thorough review of institutional affiliation policies.
With a Z-score of 2.756, the university shows a significant rate of retractions, starkly contrasting with the national medium-risk average of 0.367. This discrepancy indicates that the institution is experiencing a concentration of these events that is highly unusual for its context, pointing to vulnerabilities that are more pronounced than those in the national system. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is a serious warning of a potential weakness in the institutional integrity culture, possibly indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate and in-depth qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 2.177, which, while within the medium-risk category, is considerably higher than the country's average of 0.360. This demonstrates that the university is significantly more exposed to this risk factor than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of potential scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern signals a high risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 0.457 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.499, both falling within the medium-risk range. This alignment suggests that the institution's performance on this indicator reflects a systemic, nationwide pattern rather than an isolated institutional issue. The presence of publications in discontinued journals constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This shared challenge indicates that a significant portion of national scientific production, including the university's, may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a collective need for enhanced information literacy to avoid reputational harm and the misallocation of research resources to predatory outlets.
The institution demonstrates an excellent profile in this area with a Z-score of -1.349, indicating a very low risk and a performance that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -1.066). This result shows a clear absence of risk signals related to inflated author lists. The data suggests that the university's authorship practices are transparent and maintain individual accountability, successfully avoiding the questionable dynamics of 'honorary' or political authorship. This is a sign of strong governance in a key area of research integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.785, the institution shows a prudent and favorable profile, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.061). A negative score in this indicator is a positive sign, suggesting that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is higher than the average impact of its total output. This indicates strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, countering the risk of dependency on external partners for prestige. The university's scientific excellence appears to be structural and sustainable, driven by its own research initiatives rather than a passive role in external collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.892). This lack of risk signals is a positive finding, indicating that the university does not have a notable presence of authors with extreme publication volumes. This suggests a healthy balance between productivity and research quality, steering clear of potential integrity risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the substance of the scientific record. It reflects a research environment that values meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting a state of integrity synchrony within a very low-risk environment. This perfect alignment demonstrates that the institution, like its national peers, avoids over-reliance on its own publication channels. By doing so, it successfully mitigates the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its credibility and global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.416, while in the medium-risk category, indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.289. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to practices that may artificially inflate publication counts. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific record by prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant, novel knowledge.
