| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.357 | 0.936 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | 0.771 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.187 | 0.909 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.211 | 0.157 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.208 | -1.105 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.145 | 0.081 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.473 | -0.967 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.096 | 0.966 |
The Université Hassiba BenBouali de Chlef presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.147 that reflects a combination of notable strengths and specific vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust internal controls in key areas, showing lower-than-national-average risk in retracted output and redundant publications, and maintaining very low-risk levels for hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals. However, this is contrasted by a high exposure to risks related to multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact, where its indicators are consistently higher than the national benchmark. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally are in Mathematics, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Energy, and Engineering. While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks—particularly those suggesting academic endogamy or inflated credit—could challenge the pursuit of genuine excellence and global recognition for its areas of strength. By leveraging its proven capacity for integrity in some domains, the university has a solid foundation to develop targeted policies that address its specific vulnerabilities, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and enhancing the sustainable impact of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.357 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.936. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a much greater propensity for this behavior. This suggests a heightened exposure to practices that, while sometimes legitimate, can also be used as a strategy to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." This marked difference from the national norm indicates that the university's collaborative patterns warrant a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and transparently managed.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.771. This positive divergence suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in pre-publication review, but this institution's low score points to a resilient integrity culture and responsible oversight, where potential errors are likely corrected before they enter the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.187 in institutional self-citation, a figure considerably above the national average of 0.909. This indicates that the university is more exposed than its national peers to the risks of scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers.' Such a high rate can signal that the institution's work is being validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, which may lead to an endogamous inflation of its perceived impact. This dynamic suggests that the university's academic influence could be oversized by internal citation practices rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 0.211, slightly higher than the national average of 0.157. This indicates a greater institutional exposure to the risks associated with publishing in low-quality or predatory venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests a portion of the university's research is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical standards, creating reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy among its researchers.
The institution's Z-score of -1.208 indicates a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, positioning it favorably against the low-risk national average of -1.105. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy alignment with national standards for responsible authorship. The data suggests that the university's research culture effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or honorary authorships, thereby promoting transparency and clear accountability for the work produced.
With a Z-score of 0.145, the institution shows a wider gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, compared to the national average of 0.081. This suggests a higher exposure to the risk of a prestige that is dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. A significant gap warns that the institution's scientific standing may be overly reliant on its role in external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal capacity to ensure long-term research sustainability.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.473, which, while in the low-risk category, marks a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.967. This indicates the emergence of a risk signal for hyperprolific authorship that is not apparent in the rest of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This subtle deviation warrants monitoring to prevent potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This perfect alignment demonstrates an integrity synchrony with a secure national environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.096 reflects a low rate of redundant output, showcasing institutional resilience against a national trend that sits in the medium-risk category (Z-score of 0.966). This indicates that the university has effective mechanisms to discourage data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By promoting the publication of coherent and substantive studies, the institution avoids the artificial inflation of productivity metrics and upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it contributes, a practice that sets it apart from the broader national context.
