| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.045 | 0.704 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.122 | 1.274 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.271 | 0.060 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.462 | 1.132 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.105 | -0.763 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.396 | 0.491 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.449 | 2.211 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.234 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.590 | 0.188 |
The Islamic University of Madinah demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.719, reflecting a profile with distinct areas of strength and specific vulnerabilities requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits commendable rigor in its governance of authorship practices, showing a prudent approach to hyper-authorship, robust internal intellectual leadership, and exemplary integrity in its use of institutional journals. However, this is contrasted by a significant-risk rating in retracted output and a high exposure to risks associated with multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's research strengths are most prominent in Computer Science, Engineering, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. These achievements align with the institutional mission to provide "outstanding" scientific research. However, the identified integrity risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the mission's core commitment to "legitimacy" and the responsible dissemination of knowledge. To fully realize its global vision and uphold its foundational values, the University is advised to leverage its proven strengths in research governance to implement targeted policies that mitigate these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution’s Z-score of 2.045 is notably higher than the national average of 0.704, suggesting a greater exposure to the risks associated with this practice compared to its national peers. This pattern indicates that the University is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This elevated exposure warrants a review to ensure all affiliations are substantive and not merely "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the institution's unique identity and misrepresent its collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score of 1.122, while placing it in a significant risk category, is below the critical national average of 1.274. This indicates that while the University is a global outlier in this metric, it demonstrates more control than the national trend, representing an attenuated alert. Retractions are complex events; however, a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, a rate 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.
With a Z-score of 0.271, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.060, the institution shows a high exposure to the risks of institutional self-citation. This suggests a tendency towards internal validation that is not representative of the broader national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, but this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers." This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution demonstrates effective risk moderation with a Z-score of 0.462, well below the national average of 1.132. This reflects a differentiated management approach that successfully mitigates a risk that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert, but the University's lower rate indicates stronger due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This proactive stance helps protect it from the severe reputational risks associated with channeling work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, preventing the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding authorship, with a Z-score of -1.105 that is even lower than the national standard of -0.763. This indicates that the University manages its processes with more rigor than its national peers. The data shows a clear absence of patterns associated with author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This strong performance signals a healthy culture where authorship is likely assigned based on meaningful contributions, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and "honorary" practices.
The institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.396 indicating a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national context (0.491). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, but this institution's negative score indicates that the impact of its internally-led research is strong. This reflects a robust internal capacity for intellectual leadership, where excellence metrics are driven by the institution's own structural strengths rather than a reliance on external partners.
With a Z-score of 1.449, the institution shows effective management of authorship productivity, maintaining its risk level below the higher national average of 2.211. This differentiated approach suggests the institution is successfully moderating a risk that is more common in the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. The University's contained score indicates a better balance between quantity and quality, helping to avoid risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.268 is in total alignment with the national average of -0.234, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This integrity synchrony demonstrates that the institution is not dependent on its own journals for publication. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses academic endogamy and undergoes independent external peer review. This is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation rather than using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate CVs.
The institution's Z-score of 0.590 indicates a high exposure to the risk of redundant publications, a rate significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.188. This suggests the institution is more prone to practices that prioritize publication volume over substance. Citing previous work is necessary, but massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing." This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a dynamic that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.
