| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.219 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.853 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.273 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.569 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.121 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.264 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.856 | -0.245 |
The University of Health Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.415, which indicates performance significantly stronger than the global average. This operational excellence is built upon pronounced strengths in preventing questionable authorship practices, academic endogamy, and data fragmentation, with exceptionally low-risk signals in the rates of Hyperprolific Authors, Multiple Affiliations, and Institutional Self-Citation. This solid foundation aligns perfectly with the institution's leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds the top national position in Medicine and a top-ten rank in Dentistry. The institution's mission to "raise education in the health sector by qualified personnel" and "produce science" at an "international level" is well-supported by these integrity metrics. However, a notable vulnerability in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals presents a direct challenge to this mission, as publishing in low-quality channels can undermine international credibility and the very quality the university aims to champion. To fully realize its strategic vision, the institution is advised to leverage its considerable governance strengths to implement targeted training and due diligence policies, ensuring that its publication channels match the high caliber of its scientific contributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.219, a value indicating a very low incidence of this practice, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.526. This demonstrates a clear and consistent operational profile that aligns with national standards while showing an even greater degree of control. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's affiliations are transparent and organically driven by legitimate collaborations. This contrasts with strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," confirming that the university's collaborative footprint is based on substantive partnerships rather than metric-driven maneuvers.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution maintains a risk level lower than the national average of -0.173. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but this lower-than-average rate points toward a culture of responsible error correction rather than systemic failures in pre-publication review. The data indicates a healthy integrity culture where potential malpractice or lack of methodological rigor is effectively contained, safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.853 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.119. This result reflects a strong alignment with an environment of scientific openness and external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This indicates that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community, not oversized by internal dynamics, ensuring its work is subject to broad and diverse external scrutiny.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.273, a medium-risk signal that is notably higher than the national average of 0.179. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the channeling of valuable research into predatory or low-impact media.
With a Z-score of -0.569, the institution shows a low risk level, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This low rate indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation. By maintaining clear standards, the institution upholds individual accountability and transparency in authorship, avoiding the dilution of credit through 'honorary' attributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.121 is lower than the national average of -0.064, reflecting a prudent and sustainable research profile. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard, ensuring a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research where it exercises intellectual leadership. A smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in strong, structural internal capacity. This is a positive sign of sustainable excellence and genuine research leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.264 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.430. This consistency with a low-risk environment is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low rate in this area effectively dismisses concerns about imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing away from risks such as coercive authorship or superficial publication strategies and toward a focus on the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This signals a form of preventive isolation, where the university deliberately avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By not depending on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without competitive scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.856 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.245, indicating a very low risk of this behavior. This result aligns with a national context of low risk but demonstrates an even stronger commitment to research integrity. The data suggests that the university's authors are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on publishing complete, coherent studies strengthens the scientific evidence base and reflects a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
