| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.069 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.188 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.871 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.561 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.007 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.564 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.792 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.178 | 1.097 |
Al-Rafidain University College presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.781, the institution operates at a higher risk level than the global average, primarily driven by significant challenges in publication channel selection and post-publication quality control. Key strengths are evident in the college's very low rates of institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and publication in its own journals, indicating a commendable culture of external validation and independence. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical rates of output in discontinued journals and a significant rate of retracted publications. Thematically, the college demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in Mathematics (ranked 2nd in Iraq), Arts and Humanities (7th), and Social Sciences (20th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. These academic achievements are at risk of being undermined by the identified integrity issues. The mission to support "knowledge production" and prepare graduates for the "labor market" is directly threatened when research is channeled through non-vetted, low-quality venues. To fully realize its mission and protect its academic reputation, the college must urgently implement robust training and policy frameworks focused on responsible publication practices, ensuring its scholarly output aligns with its clear potential for excellence.
The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.069, well below the national average of -0.386. This result suggests a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, aligning with the low-risk standard observed nationally. The absence of significant risk signals indicates that the college's affiliations are managed with clarity, avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This consistency reinforces the integrity of the institution's collaborative footprint.
The college's Z-score for retracted output is 1.188, which, while indicating a significant risk, is notably lower than the critical national average of 2.124. This suggests that while the institution is operating within a national context prone to post-publication issues, it exercises comparatively more control than its peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. In this case, the attenuated alert suggests that while quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges, the problem is less severe than the systemic issues seen across the country, presenting an opportunity for targeted improvement.
With a Z-score of -0.871, the college shows an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 2.034. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation from the risk of endogamous academic practices prevalent in the wider environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural; however, the college's very low rate confirms that its research is validated through robust external scrutiny rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This strong performance indicates that the institution's academic influence is genuinely built on recognition from the global community, avoiding the risk of artificially inflating its impact through internal dynamics.
This indicator represents a critical and urgent issue for the institution. Its Z-score of 8.561 is extremely high, significantly exceeding the already compromised national average of 5.771. This value is a global red flag, positioning the college as a leader in this high-risk behavior within a country already facing systemic challenges. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial part of the college's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and suggesting an immediate need for information literacy programs to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution registers a Z-score of -1.007 for hyper-authored output, which, while low, represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national average of -1.116. This indicates the emergence of minor risk signals that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This subtle deviation warrants observation to ensure that collaborative practices remain transparent and that authorship is not being assigned on an honorary or political basis.
The institution shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.564 in this indicator, which is higher than the national average of 0.242. This suggests the college has a high exposure to dependency on external partners for generating impact, a vulnerability more pronounced than in its national environment. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result invites reflection on whether the college's prestige is derived from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, potentially creating an exogenous and dependent model of excellence.
The college maintains a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.792, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.319. This indicates that the institution's processes effectively discourage extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By managing this indicator more strictly than its peers, the college mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby promoting a healthier balance between the quantity and quality of its scientific output and reinforcing the integrity of its academic record.
The institution demonstrates outstanding governance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a near-total absence of reliance on its own journals. This performance is particularly noteworthy when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.373. This effective isolation from a common national risk shows a strong commitment to external validation. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party, the college ensures its scientific production bypasses academic endogamy and competes for publication on the global stage. This practice enhances the credibility and visibility of its research, confirming it undergoes independent peer review rather than using internal 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.178, the institution shows a low rate of redundant output, demonstrating resilience against a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 1.097). This suggests that the college's internal control mechanisms are effective in mitigating the systemic pressures that can lead to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By maintaining a low bibliographic overlap between publications, the institution promotes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, contributing positively to the scientific record and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
