| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.430 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.009 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.408 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.530 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.246 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.338 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.482 | 1.097 |
Al-Iraqia University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.656, indicating a landscape of significant strengths coexisting with critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas related to authorship practices, such as the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, where its performance is markedly better than the national average. These strengths suggest robust internal policies governing collaboration and publication ethics. However, these are offset by significant risks in publication strategy, most notably a critical Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a high Rate of Retracted Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas include Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Computer Science; and Business, Management and Accounting. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication quality and retractions, directly challenge the university's mission to uphold "quality standards" and "ethical thought" necessary for accreditation. To fully leverage its thematic strengths and achieve its mission, it is imperative for the university to implement targeted interventions that enhance due diligence in journal selection and reinforce pre-publication quality assurance, thereby aligning its operational practices with its strategic vision of excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.430 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.386, indicating a risk level that is normal and expected for its context. This demonstrates that the university's affiliation patterns are consistent with national collaborative norms. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current low rate at Al-Iraqia University suggests that its collaborative activities are well within standard academic practice, reflecting legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships rather than strategic manipulation.
With a Z-score of 1.009, the institution's rate of retractions is at a significant risk level. However, this is notably lower than the critical national average of 2.124, suggesting that the university exercises more control than its peers in a high-risk environment. Despite this relative positive, a high score in this indicator is a serious alert. Retractions at this volume suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate points to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its academic reputation.
The university demonstrates notable resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.408, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 2.034. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation seen elsewhere. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
This indicator represents a global red flag for the institution. Its Z-score of 7.530 is not only critically high but also significantly exceeds the already compromised national average of 5.771. This finding suggests the university is an epicenter of this high-risk practice within the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality venues.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.246, which is even lower than the national average of -1.116. This complete absence of risk signals is a clear strength, indicating exemplary transparency and accountability in authorship. It confirms that the university's collaborative practices are well-defined and not susceptible to author list inflation, thereby ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and individual accountability is maintained across its research output.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.338, considerably higher than the national average of 0.242. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests the university's scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners and not yet fully structural. This reliance on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership warrants strategic reflection. To build long-term capacity, the university should focus on fostering internal research lines capable of generating high-impact work independently, ensuring that its excellence metrics reflect genuine internal strength.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a stronger performance than the low-risk national average of -0.319. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an exceptionally healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests that the university's environment does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or the artificial inflation of publication counts, instead fostering a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is prioritized over sheer volume, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national risk dynamics in this area. Its Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low risk, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.373. By not replicating the national tendency to publish in-house, the institution effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, signaling that its scientific production competes successfully in standard competitive channels rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.482 that is more pronounced than the national average of 1.097. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to practices of data fragmentation. A high value here alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
