University of Sharjah

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall integrity score of 0.616, the University of Sharjah demonstrates a robust research profile characterized by significant thematic leadership and specific areas of exemplary scientific practice, alongside critical vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The institution's strengths are evident in its minimal rate of output in institutional journals and a low rate of retractions, indicating strong quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by significant risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, which suggest that pressures to maximize quantitative metrics may be creating integrity challenges. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a premier national position in key disciplines, ranking #1 in the United Arab Emirates for Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, and Dentistry. These achievements align with its mission to provide a "world-class educational experience" and foster "pioneering research." Nevertheless, the identified risks of metric inflation could undermine this mission, creating a potential disconnect between the pursuit of excellence and the practices used to measure it. This report should serve as a strategic tool to address these vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing the institution's commitment to sustainable and responsible research leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Sharjah presents a Z-score of 2.951 in this indicator, a figure that significantly surpasses the national average of 1.157. This comparison suggests that the institution is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. Such a disproportionately high rate of multiple affiliations serves as a critical alert. It may signal systemic practices aimed at strategically inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping” to maximize rankings, rather than reflecting organic research collaboration. This pattern warrants an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure they align with principles of transparency and genuine contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university demonstrates a commendably low rate of retracted publications, particularly when contrasted with the United Arab Emirates' medium-risk average of 0.057. This divergence highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. A low retraction rate is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture, where robust pre-publication quality control and methodological rigor are succeeding in preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.522, marking a moderate deviation from the national average, which stands at a low -0.199. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is normal, this elevated rate could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers,' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.388 for publications in discontinued journals is closely aligned with the national average of 0.432. This similarity suggests the institution is part of a systemic pattern, reflecting shared practices or information gaps prevalent across the country's research ecosystem. This indicator serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Publishing in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests a need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.185 for hyper-authored output is low, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.474. Although both values are within a low-risk range, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability at the university. It suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the institution shows slightly more signals of this activity than its peers. This warrants a proactive review of authorship guidelines to ensure they clearly distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preventing the potential for this risk to escalate.

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

The University of Sharjah exhibits a Z-score of 0.045 in this indicator, a value significantly lower than the national average of 0.219. This demonstrates a case of differentiated management, where the institution effectively moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A smaller gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less dependent on the leadership of external partners. This indicates a healthy balance between the impact generated from collaborations and the institution's own internal capacity to lead high-quality research, pointing to a more sustainable model of scientific development.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 3.160, the university shows a significant concentration of hyperprolific authors, a figure that dramatically exceeds the national medium-risk average of 1.351. This finding indicates a sharp accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system. Such extreme individual publication volumes challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and serve as a major alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This trend points to urgent risks, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without genuine participation, which prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and require immediate managerial attention.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is identical to the national average, with both positioned at a very low-risk level. This perfect alignment demonstrates an integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby reinforcing its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.312, which, while in the medium-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of 0.194. This suggests the university has a higher exposure to this risk and is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. A high value in this indicator warns of the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.