| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.516 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.907 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.013 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.300 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.756 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.270 | 1.097 |
Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, effectively mitigating several systemic risks prevalent at the national level. With an overall score of 1.273, the institution demonstrates robust internal governance, particularly in maintaining low rates of retracted output, avoiding dependency on external research leadership, and ensuring transparent authorship practices. These strengths are reflected in its competitive national rankings within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in key areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, Physics and Astronomy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by a significant vulnerability: an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals. This practice directly contradicts the university's mission to publish in "rigid scientific journals" and achieve "excellence," posing a severe reputational risk that could impede its goal of establishing "secure cooperation" with international partners. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, it is imperative to address this specific issue, thereby safeguarding its otherwise commendable commitment to scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.516, which is more controlled than the national average of -0.386. This prudent profile suggests that the university's collaborative processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and partnerships, the university's contained rate indicates a healthy collaborative ecosystem, free from signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution stands in stark contrast to the significant risk level of the country (2.124). This demonstrates the presence of an effective filter, where the university acts as a firewall against the problematic practices observed nationally. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. In this case, the university's low score is a positive sign of responsible supervision and a robust integrity culture, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that appears to be a vulnerability in the national system.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.907, a medium-risk signal that is nonetheless considerably lower than the national average of 2.034. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A high rate of self-citation can create scientific 'echo chambers' and inflate impact through endogamous dynamics. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the university shows a healthier balance, suggesting its academic influence is less reliant on internal validation and more open to external scrutiny from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 8.013 is exceptionally high, surpassing an already critical national average of 5.771. This constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but leads this high-risk behavior within a compromised national context. This practice is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.300, even lower than the country's very low score of -1.116, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area. This complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to a low-risk national baseline, points to exemplary and transparent authorship practices. It confirms that the university's research culture values individual accountability and avoids the kind of author list inflation that can dilute responsibility, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.756, a strong positive signal, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.242, which indicates a risk of dependency. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the country's systemic risks. A wide positive gap suggests that prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's negative score, however, indicates that its scientific impact is driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership, signaling true internal capacity and a sustainable model of scientific development rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national low-risk score of -0.319. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The complete absence of this signal at the institution suggests a culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of output.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national environment (1.373). This signifies a preventive isolation, whereby the university consciously avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's decision to publish externally ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, which is crucial for limiting bias, enhancing global visibility, and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.270 indicates a medium risk, but it is managed more effectively than in the country at large, which has a score of 1.097. This points to differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that is more common nationally. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's lower score suggests a stronger institutional focus on producing significant new knowledge over prioritizing publication volume, thereby better preserving the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
