Arab Open University, Saudi Arabia Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Arab Open University, Saudi Arabia Branch, presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in research culture alongside critical, concentrated vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 1.631, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, indicating a robust internal culture focused on quality and external validation. However, this is contrasted by significant risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which are not only high in absolute terms but also amplify national trends. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university contributes to key thematic areas including Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; and Social Sciences. The identified risks, particularly publishing in low-quality channels, directly challenge the institutional mission to provide "high-quality education" and "promote scientific research," potentially undermining its goal of "sustained development." To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is advised to leverage its clear cultural strengths to implement targeted governance and training initiatives aimed at mitigating these specific, high-risk behaviors.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 10.665, a figure that critically surpasses the national average of 0.704. This result indicates a pattern of risk accentuation, where the university not only reflects but significantly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national scientific system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate signals a potential systemic issue. This level of activity strongly suggests that affiliations may be used as a strategic tool to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice that can compromise the transparency and integrity of research attribution and requires immediate administrative review.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a commendable performance, especially when contrasted with the significant risk level indicated by the national average of 1.274. This disparity suggests the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the broader national trends that lead to higher retraction rates. This low score indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. It reflects a strong integrity culture and responsible supervision, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that may be occurring elsewhere in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.128 is exceptionally low, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which shows a medium risk with a Z-score of 0.060. This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, instead fostering a culture of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms the absence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a strong indicator that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 4.741 is a critical alert, dramatically amplifying the national average of 1.132. This extreme value points to a severe issue with risk accentuation, where the university is far more vulnerable than its national peers to this particular integrity risk. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage, suggesting that a significant portion of its scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. There is an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.184, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, consistent with the low-risk national standard of -0.763. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national norm. The data suggests that the university's authorship practices are well-governed and transparent, successfully avoiding the risk of author list inflation. This indicates a healthy research environment where credit is assigned appropriately, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.412, a low-risk value that reflects strong institutional resilience, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.491, which indicates a medium risk. This suggests the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the country's systemic risks related to dependency on external collaboration for impact. A low or negative gap is a positive indicator, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent and exogenous but is instead built upon real internal capacity. This reflects a sustainable model where the university exercises intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is very low, indicating a state of preventive isolation from the national environment, where the average score of 2.211 signals a medium risk. This strong divergence shows the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality of research output. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing an institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.234, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. The minimal reliance on in-house journals is a sign of good governance, as it avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated competitively and achieves greater global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.297, the institution's risk level is higher than the national average of 0.188, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior than its environment average. This value warns of a potential tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice warrants closer review, as it can distort the available scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.