| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.656 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.906 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.851 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.898 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.620 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.303 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.451 | 1.097 |
Sulaimani Polytechnic University demonstrates a complex and dualistic profile in scientific integrity. The institution exhibits remarkable strengths in maintaining academic openness, with exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, indicating a strong commitment to external validation. However, this positive foundation is contrasted by significant risks in key areas, notably a high rate of retracted output and a substantial gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. This profile suggests that while the university successfully avoids insular practices, its quality control mechanisms and strategic positioning in research collaborations require immediate and focused attention to fully align with its mission of preparing skilled experts and serving the community with reliable, high-caliber knowledge.
With an overall integrity score of 0.568, Sulaimani Polytechnic University's performance is marked by clear areas of excellence and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its very low risk of academic endogamy, reflected in minimal rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals. Conversely, the most critical weaknesses are a significant rate of retracted publications and a pronounced dependency on external partners for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Computer Science (ranked 8th in Iraq), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (9th), and Engineering (12th). These areas of academic strength are directly undermined by the identified integrity risks. The mission to equip graduates with "up-to-date skills" and "serve the community" is compromised when the underlying research record shows signs of unreliability (retractions) and when institutional prestige is derived from collaborations without exercising intellectual leadership. To bridge this gap, the university should leverage its culture of academic openness to implement rigorous pre-publication quality assurance protocols and develop strategies to foster endogenous research leadership, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions are as robust and sustainable as its educational mission demands.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.656, while the national average is -0.386. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate suggests a need to review whether these are primarily the result of productive collaborations or if they signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national norm warrants a closer examination of its affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine scientific cooperation.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.906, a significant value that is nonetheless considerably lower than the critical national average of 2.124. This suggests an attenuated alert; while the university is situated within a national environment facing systemic challenges, it appears to exercise more effective control over its publication quality than many of its peers. However, a high Z-score in this indicator is a serious concern, as it suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. 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 to safeguard its reputation.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation with a Z-score of -1.851, in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed nationally (Z-score: 2.034). This profile reflects a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids replicating the risk of scientific insularity present in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s very low value is a positive indicator that it is not creating 'echo chambers' to inflate its impact. This commitment to external scrutiny ensures that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 1.898, the institution shows a medium level of risk, which represents a state of relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 5.771. Although risk signals are present, the university operates with more order than the national trend, channeling a smaller proportion of its research into questionable outlets. Nevertheless, a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being directed to media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.620 for hyper-authored output indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is even lower (-1.116). This result suggests the emergence of risk signals that are not yet prevalent across the country. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' a rising Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal, though currently low, serves as a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices before they become entrenched.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.303, a significant value that sharply accentuates the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.242). This wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. The high value strongly suggests that the university's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dependency that could threaten its long-term scientific autonomy and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the low-risk national standard of -0.319. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals regarding hyperprolific authors is in line with the national context. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's very low score in this area is a positive sign, indicating a healthy balance between productivity and quality and a research environment that does not appear to incentivize the inflation of publication metrics at the expense of scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 1.373). This is a strong indicator of good governance. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's low score demonstrates a commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility by not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.451, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 1.097. This suggests a degree of institutional resilience, whereby internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of data fragmentation prevalent in the country. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' can indicate a practice of dividing studies into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score indicates that its researchers are largely focused on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, a practice that upholds the integrity of the scientific record.
