Riyadh Elm University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Riyadh Elm University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score (0.138) and notable strengths in mitigating practices that could compromise research quality. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating a culture of external validation and a focus on substantive contributions. However, two indicators—the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Gap between total and leadership impact—emerge as medium-risk vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Dentistry and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institution's low-risk profile generally aligns with its mission to make an "active contribution to scientific research," the identified vulnerabilities could undermine this goal. A dependency on external leadership for impact and exposure to low-quality publication channels challenge the pursuit of excellence and responsible community service. By addressing these specific areas, Riyadh Elm University can further solidify its standing as a leader in ethical and impactful research, ensuring its contributions are both significant and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.727, contrasting with the national average of 0.704. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as the university effectively mitigates systemic risks that appear more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the country's moderate score suggests a broader tendency toward practices that could inflate institutional credit. Riyadh Elm University’s low score indicates that its control mechanisms are successful, fostering a research environment where affiliations are transparent and accurately reflect genuine partnerships, rather than engaging in "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.033 against a significantly high national average of 1.274, the institution functions as an effective filter against the risk practices observed in its environment. The country's high score points to a systemic vulnerability where quality control mechanisms may be failing prior to publication. In stark contrast, the university's very low rate of retractions suggests that its internal supervision and integrity culture are robust. This acts as a firewall, preventing the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere and protecting its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.289, a figure that signals preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.060. The national context shows a moderate risk of developing scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally rather than by the broader academic community. The university's exceptionally low score demonstrates a clear disconnection from this dynamic. This indicates a strong, outward-looking research culture that prioritizes external scrutiny and global community recognition, effectively avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.966 is notably higher than the national average of 1.132, indicating a high level of exposure to this risk factor. Although this is a shared challenge nationally, the university is more prone to showing these alert signals. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.467 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.763, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. While both scores are in the low-risk category, the university shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. This indicator, when elevated outside of "Big Science" contexts, can suggest a dilution of individual accountability through author list inflation. The minor deviation from the national norm serves as a proactive signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors have made meaningful contributions, preventing a shift toward honorary or political authorship.

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

With a Z-score of 2.045, the institution shows a much higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.491. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be highly dependent on external partners and not yet fully structural. The high value invites critical reflection on whether the university's strong impact metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Addressing this is key to building a self-sufficient and sustainable research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 marks a state of preventive isolation from the national environment, which has a medium-risk score of 2.211. The national trend suggests a vulnerability to practices where extreme publication volumes may compromise quality, potentially indicating coercive authorship or data fragmentation. The university's very low score shows a complete disconnection from this risk, reflecting a healthy academic culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution over the pursuit of purely quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a similar score of -0.234. This total alignment in a very low-risk area signifies a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest by having the institution act as both judge and party, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.379, a sign of institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.188. The country's medium-risk score suggests a systemic tendency toward 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. The university’s low score indicates that its internal controls and research culture effectively mitigate this practice. This focus on publishing coherent, significant studies over sheer volume ensures a more meaningful contribution to the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer review system.