| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.417 | 2.525 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | 0.367 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.190 | 0.360 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.595 | 0.499 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.045 | -1.066 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.014 | -0.061 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.939 | -0.892 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.237 | 0.289 |
Universite de La Manouba presents a robust scientific integrity profile (Overall Score: 0.191), characterized by significant strengths and specific, targeted areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates remarkable resilience, consistently outperforming national averages in critical areas such as the Rate of Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output, indicating effective internal quality controls. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two key vulnerabilities: a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a medium-level concern regarding the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. The university's academic excellence is evident in its national leadership in several fields, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top institutions in Tunisia for Business, Management and Accounting (Top 3), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 3), Veterinary (Top 4), and Arts and Humanities (Top 5). These achievements directly reflect its mission to disseminate "cutting-edge knowledge," yet the identified risks pose a direct challenge to this goal. An unmanaged, high rate of multiple affiliations and publishing in low-quality journals could undermine the perceived integrity of its partnerships and the value of its research, contradicting the core mission of ensuring "continuous quality improvement." By strategically addressing these two specific vulnerabilities, the university can fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, reinforcing its position as a leader in responsible and high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of 3.417 is notably higher than the national average of 2.525. This result suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present within the Tunisian research system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It may signal systemic practices of "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit without a corresponding contribution. This dynamic requires an urgent internal review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and align with the institution's commitment to transparent and ethical research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance compared to the national average of 0.367. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly below the national context suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance points to a strong integrity culture that actively prevents recurring malpractice and promotes methodological rigor, setting a standard of excellence within the country.
The institution's Z-score of -0.190 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.360, highlighting its capacity to resist broader systemic trends. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university effectively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or operating within an "echo chamber." This demonstrates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader international community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into global scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 0.595 is slightly above the national average of 0.499, indicating a higher exposure to a risk that is already a shared concern at the country level. This elevated rate constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.045 is nearly identical to the national average of -1.066, indicating that its risk level is normal and as expected for its context. This alignment shows that the university's authorship practices are in step with the national standard, which is characterized by a low risk of author list inflation. This suggests a healthy and transparent approach to assigning credit, where individual accountability is preserved and 'honorary' authorships are not a common practice.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.061. This result is a positive indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. The minimal gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Instead, its impact is derived from genuine internal capacity, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.939 signifies a very low-risk profile, consistent with the low-risk national standard of -0.892. The near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong indicator of a research culture that prioritizes quality over quantity. This low-profile consistency suggests that the university successfully avoids the pressures that can lead to imbalances, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record and aligning with best practices for responsible productivity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect synchrony in an environment of maximum scientific security. This total alignment indicates a strong and shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By consistently publishing in external, independent journals, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility, reinforcing its commitment to objective, peer-reviewed science.
The institution's Z-score of -0.237 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.289, showcasing its resilience against a risk more prevalent in its environment. This low rate indicates that the university has effective mechanisms to discourage the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple "minimal publishable units." By promoting the publication of coherent and significant bodies of work, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system, a commendable deviation from the national trend.
