Shaqra University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shaqra University demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.819, reflecting a complex profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside specific areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution excels in maintaining very low to low-risk levels for practices such as institutional self-citation, hyper-prolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating robust internal controls that often surpass national standards. However, significant to medium risks are identified in the rates of retracted output, multiple affiliations, and publication in discontinued journals, which could challenge the university's mission to provide "distinguished education" and "creative research." These vulnerabilities suggest a potential misalignment between the institution's aspirational goals of excellence and its operational research practices. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Veterinary; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Physics and Astronomy; and Arts and Humanities. To safeguard its reputation and ensure its scientific contributions are both impactful and credible, it is recommended that Shaqra University focuses on strengthening its research integrity framework, particularly in pre-publication quality control and guidance on ethical collaboration, thereby ensuring its practices fully embody the high standards set forth in its mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 2.010, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.704. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk category, this score indicates that the institution is more exposed to the dynamics associated with this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This heightened exposure suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and contribute transparently to the university's research ecosystem.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.310, the institution's performance is nearly identical to the national average of 1.274, placing both in a significant-risk category. This alignment suggests the university is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic present throughout the national research system. Retractions are complex events, but a high Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate, being significantly higher than the global average, alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.596, contrasting favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.060. This positive divergence indicates institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate shows it effectively avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by external scrutiny from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and open research culture.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.600 is notably higher than the national average of 1.132, even though both are classified as medium-risk. This indicates a high exposure at the university, suggesting it is more prone than its national peers to this particular risk. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not 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.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.769, the institution's low-risk profile is in complete alignment with the national average of -0.763. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of risk is as expected for its context and size. This synchrony indicates that the university's authorship practices are standard and do not present signals of author list inflation. The institution appears to successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in certain fields and the problematic use of 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby maintaining transparency and individual accountability in its research output.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.280, which is substantially higher than the national average of 0.491. This disparity, while within a shared medium-risk context, points to a high institutional exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than structural, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a strong, low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.681, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 2.211. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal policies appear to effectively mitigate a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. By maintaining a low rate, the university avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as well as the risks of coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation. This control suggests a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.234, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. By not depending on its own journals for dissemination, the university ensures its scientific output is subject to standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 0.081, the institution performs better than the national average of 0.188, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the university appears to moderate a risk that is more common across the country. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's lower score suggests more effective oversight in promoting the publication of significant, new knowledge over fragmented, high-volume output, thereby better protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.