| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.779 | 4.896 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.663 | 0.079 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.566 | -0.530 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.610 | 1.017 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.551 | -0.668 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.591 | 1.045 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.398 | -0.755 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.454 | 0.188 |
Sanaa University's overall integrity profile, with a score of 0.381, reflects a complex landscape of commendable strengths and significant vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining very low rates of retracted output and publication in its own journals, indicating robust internal quality controls and a commitment to external validation. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a significant risk in the rate of multiple affiliations and medium-level risks related to redundant publications (salami slicing) and output in discontinued journals. Thematically, the university shows outstanding leadership within its national context, ranking first in Yemen across key disciplines such as Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This academic excellence is directly challenged by the identified integrity risks. Practices that suggest metric inflation or a lack of due diligence in publication channels contradict the university's mission to provide "excellent research services" based on "transparency, professionalism and creativity." To fully realize its mission and protect its academic reputation, Sanaa University should leverage its areas of integrity strength to develop targeted policies and training that address its specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research leadership is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.779, which, while slightly below the national average of 4.896, remains at a significant risk level. This indicates that the university is operating within a national environment where multiple affiliations are a critical and widespread issue, but it manages to exhibit slightly more control than its peers. This attenuated alert suggests that while the institution is a global outlier, it is not leading the problematic trend within the country. Nevertheless, a rate this high signals a systemic issue that goes beyond legitimate researcher mobility or partnerships. It points to a potential strategic use of affiliations to inflate institutional credit, a practice known as “affiliation shopping,” which can create a misleading perception of the university's research ecosystem and poses a substantial reputational risk.
With a Z-score of -0.663, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.079, which falls into the medium risk category. This result signifies a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This is a strong indicator of effective internal governance and rigorous quality control mechanisms prior to publication. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the institution fosters a culture of responsible supervision and methodological soundness, successfully preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions and associated reputational damage.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.566, closely mirroring the national average of -0.530. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's citation practices are in line with the expected behavior for its context and size. The low rate is a positive sign, suggesting that the institution avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' Rather than inflating its impact through endogamous practices, the university's work is being validated by the broader external scientific community, reflecting healthy integration and genuine academic influence recognized beyond its own walls.
The university's Z-score of 0.610 is notably lower than the national average of 1.017, although both fall within the medium risk level. This demonstrates a capacity for differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common or pronounced across the country. While a medium score still constitutes a critical alert, the university is performing better than its national peers in exercising due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This suggests that while some production is still channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, there are mechanisms in place that are partially effective. Strengthening information literacy programs could further mitigate this reputational risk and prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.551, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.668, though both remain in the low-risk category. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is low and does not suggest widespread issues, the deviation from the national norm warrants a review of authorship practices. It serves as a proactive signal to ensure that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions and to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The institution's Z-score of 0.591 is considerably better than the national average of 1.045, placing it in a position of differentiated management within a medium-risk context. This indicates that while the university, like its national peers, may rely on external partners for impact, it does so to a lesser degree. The existing gap suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, rather than being fully structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research capacities to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own intellectual leadership, thereby securing a more sustainable and autonomous scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.398, while in the low-risk range, is higher than the national average of -0.755. This difference signals an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the university shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. Although the current level does not indicate a systemic problem, it points to a need for monitoring individual publication volumes. Extreme productivity can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, and this indicator serves as an alert to safeguard the balance between quantity and quality, preventing potential dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony in a very low-risk area. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security is a significant strength. It demonstrates that the university avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and reinforces its commitment to unbiased evaluation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.454, a figure that indicates high exposure to this risk and stands in stark contrast to the much lower national average of 0.188. This disparity suggests the university is significantly more prone to this practice than its environment. Such a high value is a strong alert for the fragmentation of data, or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but, more critically, distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and posing a serious threat to the institution's research credibility.
