| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.984 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.489 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
9.055 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.552 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.491 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.854 | 1.097 |
Al-Mansour University College presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 1.741 indicating specific areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths in maintaining low-risk practices related to authorship and citation, including minimal rates of hyper-authorship, institutional self-citation, and output in its own journals, effectively insulating itself from several national risk trends. These strengths are foundational to credible research. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by significant alerts in publication strategy, specifically an extremely high rate of output in discontinued journals and a significant rate of redundant publications (salami slicing). These weaknesses directly challenge the institution's mission to foster "pioneering works" and "scientific researches," as they compromise the quality and global standing of its academic output. The College's notable rankings in Computer Science, Engineering, and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a strong academic base that is at risk of reputational damage. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence, the institution should leverage its robust governance in authorship to urgently reform its publication channel selection and research dissemination policies, ensuring its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably sound.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.984, which is well below the national average of -0.386. This indicates a very low-risk profile and a healthy consistency with national standards. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the institution's affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the College's low rate confirms it is not engaging in practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the country's significant-risk average of 2.124. This marked difference suggests the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully implementing quality control mechanisms that prevent the systemic failures observed at the national level. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision, but a low rate like this, especially in a high-risk environment, points to robust pre-publication review and a strong integrity culture that successfully mitigates recurring malpractice or methodological flaws before they enter the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.489 reflects a low-risk level, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the national medium-risk average of 2.034. This suggests that the College's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic insularity present in the country. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation. This commitment to external scrutiny ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community, not just internal dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 9.055, a critical value that not only falls into the significant risk category but also far exceeds the already high national average of 5.771. This metric is a global red flag, indicating that the College is a leading contributor to this high-risk practice within a nation already compromised in this area. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high concentration of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent, systemic need to improve information literacy and oversight to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average of -1.116. This state of total operational silence indicates that authorship practices are exceptionally well-managed and transparent. The data confirms that the institution's research culture is free from author list inflation and honorary or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and individual accountability is maintained, which is a hallmark of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.552 is in the medium-risk range and is notably higher than the national average of 0.242. This indicates a high exposure to dependency risk, suggesting the institution is more prone than its national peers to relying on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential risk to sustainability. It suggests that the College's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.491, which is lower than the national average of -0.319. This low-risk value indicates that the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the College effectively mitigates the risks of imbalances between quantity and quality. This suggests a healthy research environment that discourages practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 1.373. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the College deliberately avoids the risk dynamics common in its environment. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous external peer review. This choice reinforces its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed by independent, international standards.
The institution's Z-score of 4.854 is a significant-risk signal that sharply accentuates the vulnerabilities present in the national system, which has a medium-risk average of 1.097. This high value is a critical alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system but also prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, requiring an immediate review of research conduct and publication ethics.
