| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.819 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.019 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.240 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.157 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.671 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.131 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.539 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.103 | 0.188 |
Al-Baha University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.318 indicating specific areas that require strategic intervention. The institution's primary vulnerabilities are concentrated in its collaboration and quality control frameworks, evidenced by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Retracted Output. These challenges stand in contrast to notable strengths in managing individual author conduct and internal publication channels, with very low to low risk in areas such as Output in Institutional Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates its strongest research capacity in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, and Veterinary sciences. However, the identified integrity risks, particularly concerning retractions and affiliation practices, directly challenge the university's mission to provide "distinguished... scholarly research." These practices undermine the credibility and excellence the institution aims for, creating a misalignment between its operational reality and its strategic vision. To bridge this gap, it is recommended that the university leverages its demonstrated strengths in governance to implement robust policies for affiliation transparency and rigorous pre-publication quality assurance, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its commitment to contributing to the knowledge society.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.819, a value significantly higher than the national average of 0.704. This indicates that the university is not only participating in a national trend but is amplifying the associated vulnerabilities. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this disproportionately high rate suggests a potential systemic issue, pointing towards strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than purely organic research collaboration. This pattern warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that affiliations reflect substantive contributions and transparent partnerships.
With a Z-score of 3.019, the institution's rate of retractions is a critical outlier, substantially exceeding the already high national average of 1.274. This profile constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in risk metrics within a compromised national environment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that internal quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.240, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.060. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers.' It serves as a warning for the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.157 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.132, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern shared across the country. This alignment suggests that the risk is likely tied to common practices or a widespread lack of information regarding publication venues at a national level. Nevertheless, a high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.671, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, closely aligned with but slightly higher than the national average of -0.763. This proximity to the national norm suggests statistical normality, but the minor elevation points to an incipient vulnerability. While not currently a concern, this signal warrants monitoring to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. It is crucial to prevent any potential inflation of author lists, which can dilute individual responsibility and compromise the integrity of authorship credit.
The institution's Z-score of 0.131 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.491, demonstrating differentiated management of this risk. This indicates that the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a stronger internal capacity for intellectual leadership, where excellence metrics are more closely tied to research led by its own academics rather than being primarily derived from collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role.
The university demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.539 in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 2.211. This shows that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution successfully avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as well as risks like coercive authorship or honorary attributions. This practice upholds the integrity of its scientific record by ensuring that authorship reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low national average of -0.234. This operational silence indicates a robust commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review. This approach enhances global visibility and credibility, demonstrating a clear preference for competitive validation over the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution shows strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.103, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.188. This indicates that its control mechanisms are effective in mitigating a risk that is more prevalent nationally. The low rate of redundant output suggests a focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics. This commitment helps prevent the practice of 'salami slicing,' which fragments coherent studies into minimal publishable units, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reducing the burden on the peer-review system.
