| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.337 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.588 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.331 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.359 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.181 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.332 | 1.097 |
Al-Karkh University of Science demonstrates a robust overall performance with a score of 0.829, reflecting a strong foundation in scientific integrity, particularly in authorship and quality control practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and hyper-authored output, alongside a commendable resistance to national trends in retractions and redundant publications. However, this positive profile is critically undermined by a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which not only exceeds the high national average but also poses a severe reputational risk. The university's thematic strengths, as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in areas such as Physics and Astronomy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Chemistry. While the institution's formal mission was not available for this analysis, the critical risk identified directly conflicts with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility; channeling research into low-quality venues negates the potential for genuine impact. The university is therefore advised to leverage its clear internal governance strengths to urgently implement policies and training that guide researchers toward reputable publication channels, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions achieve the visibility and credibility they deserve.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.337, significantly lower than the national average of -0.386. This result indicates a highly controlled and transparent approach to author affiliations, showing an absence of risk signals that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the low-risk standard observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate confirms that its practices are not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a clear and well-governed policy on academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution effectively counters a critical national trend, where the country's average is a significant 2.124. This marked difference suggests the university functions as an effective filter, insulating its scientific record from the systemic risks prevalent in its environment. Retractions can sometimes signal responsible error correction, but a high national rate often points to widespread issues. The institution's ability to maintain a low rate indicates that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or methodological failures that appear to be a vulnerability elsewhere in the country.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.588, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.034. This demonstrates a differentiated management of a risk that is common within the country. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for developing research lines, but the university's more moderate level suggests it is less prone to the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' than its national peers. By exercising greater control, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is more reliant on external validation from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 6.331 is a critical alert, exceeding the already high national average of 5.771. This finding constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in a compromised national dynamic but is a leading contributor to it. This high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards represents a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. It exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and immediate need for information literacy and policy reform to prevent the waste of research resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.359, which is even lower than the country's very low average of -1.116. This signals a total operational silence in this risk area, confirming an exemplary approach to authorship. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The university's complete absence of such signals indicates that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively avoiding any risk of 'honorary' or inflated authorship and setting a standard of integrity that surpasses the already positive national norm.
The institution's Z-score of 0.181 is slightly below the national average of 0.242. This indicates that the university is effectively managing a common challenge in its environment. A wide gap suggests that scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external collaborations rather than internal capacity. The institution's comparatively smaller gap points to a more balanced portfolio, where it is better able to generate impact from research under its own intellectual leadership. This moderates the risk of developing a purely exogenous reputation and signals a healthier, more sustainable path toward building structural excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a stronger position than the country's low-risk average of -0.319. This low-profile consistency aligns perfectly with responsible research standards. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's data confirms it fosters an environment that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over raw metrics, successfully avoiding potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 1.373, showcasing a clear case of preventive isolation. While the national system shows a tendency toward publishing in in-house journals, the university avoids this dynamic entirely. This is a significant strength, as it ensures its research output consistently undergoes independent, external peer review, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific work.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.332, compared to the country's medium-risk average of 1.097. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate publication counts. The institution's low score indicates a commitment to publishing complete and significant research, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
