Ajman University of Science and Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ajman University of Science and Technology presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a high overall risk score (Z-score: 1.860) that signals significant vulnerabilities requiring strategic intervention. The institution's primary challenges lie in the areas of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and Hyperprolific Authors, where risk levels are critical and substantially exceed national averages. These weaknesses are counterbalanced by notable strengths, particularly an exemplary low rate of output in institutional journals and prudent management of hyper-authorship, demonstrating capacity for robust internal governance. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows outstanding thematic leadership, ranking #1 in the UAE for Earth and Planetary Sciences, #2 for Dentistry, and #5 for Arts and Humanities. However, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the institutional mission to provide "high quality" education and develop "socially responsible" graduates. Practices that inflate metrics or compromise the scientific record undermine the very foundation of academic excellence and public trust. To secure its leadership and fully align with its mission, the university should prioritize a comprehensive review of its research ethics, authorship policies, and quality assurance mechanisms, transforming these challenges into an opportunity to reinforce its commitment to sustainable and responsible scientific advancement.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.059, a critical value that significantly surpasses the national Z-score of 1.157. This disparity indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert. It strongly suggests that a pattern of strategic "affiliation shopping" may be occurring to artificially inflate institutional credit and rankings, a practice that can obscure the true origin of scientific contributions and compromise transparent accounting of research output.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 3.310, the institution's rate of retractions is alarmingly high, especially when compared to the national Z-score of 0.057. This severe discrepancy suggests the institution is an outlier, amplifying a risk that is otherwise moderate within the country. A rate this far above the global average is a serious red flag for the integrity of its research culture. It points to the possibility that pre-publication quality control mechanisms are failing systemically, potentially allowing recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor to go unchecked. This situation warrants an immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to diagnose the root causes and protect the institution's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.191 is statistically identical to the national average of -0.199, indicating a risk level that is normal and expected for its context. This alignment demonstrates that the university's citation practices are in sync with the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. By maintaining a low and standard rate, the institution successfully avoids signals of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny rather than relying on internal dynamics to inflate its perceived impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.314 is notably higher than the national average of 0.432, even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This suggests the university has a greater exposure to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.839, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous approach to authorship than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.474. This prudent profile suggests that the university's internal processes effectively manage the complexities of scientific collaboration. By maintaining a lower-than-average rate of hyper-authorship, the institution shows a capacity to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in the attribution of scientific credit, which is a sign of a healthy research environment.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 1.117 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.219, indicating a greater-than-average propensity for this risk. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on a foundation of structural, internal capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of its own intellectual leadership or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations led by external partners.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 3.071 is a significant red flag, drastically exceeding the national Z-score of 1.351. This indicates the university is amplifying a national vulnerability to a critical level. Such extreme individual publication volumes challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and serve as a strong alert for potential integrity issues. This high indicator points to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These are dynamics that prioritize the inflation of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require immediate review.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This total alignment is a clear strength, indicating that the university is not dependent on its own journals for publication. By avoiding this potential conflict of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice prevents academic endogamy, enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.272, the institution shows a higher exposure to redundant publication practices compared to the national average of 0.194. Although both scores are in the medium-risk range, the university is more prone to this alert signal. This pattern of massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications can be an indicator of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.