| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.720 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.418 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.474 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
11.389 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.263 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.287 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.198 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.164 | 1.097 |
Al-Qasim Green University presents a moderate overall risk profile (Z-score: 2.289), characterized by a notable duality. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in governance and authorship ethics, with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These areas suggest a robust internal culture of integrity. However, this is contrasted by significant and urgent vulnerabilities in publication strategy, specifically a critical rate of output in discontinued journals and a high rate of institutional self-citation. Thematically, the university shows strong national positioning in key scientific areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Physics and Astronomy (9th in Iraq), Veterinary (9th in Iraq), Earth and Planetary Sciences (12th in Iraq), and Chemistry (13th in Iraq). These thematic strengths align with its mission to produce "pioneering scientific research," but the identified risks directly threaten the "high quality" and credibility central to this mission. The prevalence of publications in discontinued journals and high self-citation rates suggests that the university's impact may be artificially inflated or isolated, undermining its goal of contributing to a global knowledge economy. To fully realize its potential and mission, it is imperative for the university to implement a strategic plan focused on enhancing information literacy and promoting publication in high-quality, internationally recognized venues.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.720, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.386. This indicates that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low score suggests it effectively avoids practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a clear and transparent approach to academic partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution shows a medium risk level that signifies relative containment compared to the significant national risk level (Z-score: 2.124). Although some risk signals exist, the university appears to operate with more order than the national average, suggesting its internal quality control mechanisms are more effective at mitigating the systemic issues present elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture; however, in this context, the university's performance indicates a comparatively stronger pre-publication review process that helps safeguard its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 2.474 represents a significant risk, accentuating the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.034). This disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation and the potential for an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice amplifies the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the university's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that is even more pronounced here than in the rest of the country.
The university's Z-score of 11.389 constitutes a global red flag, as it leads the risk metrics in a country already facing a critical challenge in this area (national Z-score: 5.771). This extremely high value is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent, systemic need for information literacy and policy reform to prevent the waste of research resources on predatory or low-quality publications.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -1.263, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -1.116. This complete absence of risk signals indicates exemplary and transparent authorship practices. It confirms that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the university is not engaging in author list inflation, thereby ensuring that individual accountability is maintained and that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.287 (low risk) against a national average of 0.242 (medium risk), the institution demonstrates notable resilience. This suggests that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks related to impact dependency. Unlike the national trend, the university's scientific prestige does not appear to be overly reliant on external partners for impact. This negative gap indicates strong structural capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable model where excellence metrics are generated by genuine internal research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.198 reflects a very low risk level, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard (Z-score: -0.319). The absence of risk signals in this indicator is a positive sign of a healthy research environment. It suggests that the university fosters a balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding the potential pitfalls of hyper-productivity, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) indicates a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 1.373, medium risk). By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the institution commendably avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an entity acts as both judge and party. This commitment to independent external peer review strengthens the credibility of its research and enhances its potential for global visibility and impact, setting a standard of good practice in its national context.
The institution's Z-score of 1.164 places it at a medium risk level, indicating high exposure to this issue, as it is slightly more prone to these signals than the national average (Z-score: 1.097). The significant bibliographic overlap detected suggests a tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics, distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the peer review system. The university's higher-than-average score warrants a review of publication ethics and author guidelines to promote the dissemination of more significant, consolidated knowledge.
