| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.032 | 2.525 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.277 | 0.367 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.046 | 0.360 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.468 | 0.499 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.835 | -1.066 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.936 | -0.061 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.235 | -0.892 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.612 | 0.289 |
The Universite de Tunis El Manar demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.263. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices, with very low rates of hyperprolific authors and publication in institutional journals, indicating a strong culture of external validation and a healthy balance between productivity and quality. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in its dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a higher-than-average exposure to redundant publications. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine the institution's mission to "produce and disseminate knowledge" and "support the different sectors of national activity" by compromising the originality and structural sustainability of its research output. The university's outstanding leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings areas such as Engineering, Medicine, Mathematics, and Physics and Astronomy, provides a solid foundation of excellence. To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to leverage these strengths to implement targeted policies that mitigate identified risks, thereby ensuring its contributions to national development are both impactful and unimpeachably rigorous.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.032, which is below the national average of 2.525. This suggests a degree of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that appears to be more pronounced across the country. Although the rate is in the medium-risk range, the institution shows better control over this dynamic than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this score warrants a review to ensure that these patterns are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.277, lower than the national average of 0.367, the institution demonstrates more effective moderation of a risk that is common in its environment. This indicates a comparatively stronger performance in managing post-publication integrity issues. However, a medium-risk score still suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have vulnerabilities. A rate higher than the global average, even if below the national one, alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that a qualitative review by management could help reinforce methodological rigor and prevent recurring malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -0.046 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.360. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity observed at the country level. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the global community, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse rather than a reliance on internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.468 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.499, indicating a systemic pattern. This risk level seems to reflect shared practices or a common information environment at the national level. A medium-risk score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of scientific production, both at the institution and nationally, is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing research to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.835, the institution's risk level is low, though slightly higher than the national average of -1.066. This score points to an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is minimal, the data shows that the university has a slightly greater tendency toward this practice than its national peers. This serves as a signal to proactively review authorship policies, ensuring they continue to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship practices that could dilute individual accountability and transparency before the issue escalates.
The institution's Z-score of 0.936 marks a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.061. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this specific risk factor than its peers, with a significant gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership. This wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not lead, a dependency that could affect its long-term scientific autonomy.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.235, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.892. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area surpasses the already low-risk national standard. This excellent result indicates that the university fosters a research environment that effectively avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It suggests a strong institutional culture that discourages practices like coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security shows that the university, in line with national best practices, does not depend on its own journals for publication. This practice mitigates potential conflicts of interest and avoids the risk of academic endogamy. By consistently seeking external peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, thereby maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.612 indicates high exposure to this risk, as it is notably higher than the national average of 0.289. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior than its environment. A high value warns of the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This dynamic not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
