| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.247 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.240 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.541 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.977 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.463 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.978 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.142 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.722 | 1.097 |
Tishk International University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance alongside critical areas requiring immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.236, the institution demonstrates commendable control over academic endogamy, as evidenced by very low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a culture that values external validation and a sustainable pace of research. This foundation supports its notable leadership within Iraq, particularly in thematic areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked #1 nationally), Social Sciences (#8), and Chemistry (#9), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is challenged by a significant rate of retracted output and a medium-risk dependency on external collaborators for impact. These vulnerabilities directly conflict with the university's mission to foster "competent individuals with a research-oriented spirit, who possess professional ethics." To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational goals, the university should leverage its thematic strengths to implement robust pre-publication quality assurance protocols and develop strategies that cultivate greater internal intellectual leadership, ensuring its contribution to humanity is both impactful and ethically sound.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.247, a notable deviation from the national average of -0.386. This contrast indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to author affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This moderate deviation warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that affiliation practices are transparent and reflect genuine intellectual contributions rather than strategic positioning.
With a Z-score of 2.240, the institution's rate of retractions is not only significant but also exceeds the already high national average of 2.124. This situation constitutes a global red flag, suggesting the university amplifies a critical risk already present in the country. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the global average points to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's reputation and uphold scientific standards.
The university demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.541, which is significantly healthier than the national average of 2.034. This indicates strong institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from insufficient external scrutiny. This result suggests the university's academic influence is validated by the global community, not just internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.977 reflects a medium risk level, yet this represents a case of relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 5.771. Although some risk signals exist, the university operates with more order and diligence in selecting publication venues than the national standard. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert, exposing an institution to severe reputational risks. While the university performs better than its environment, this score still suggests an ongoing need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence to prevent wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.463, the university shows a slight divergence from the national context, where the score is -1.116. This indicates that the institution is beginning to show low-level signals of risk activity that are largely absent in the rest of the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal, though minor, serves as an early warning to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and merit-based.
The institution's Z-score of 1.978 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.242, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, the impact of research led by its own staff is comparatively low, signaling a risk to long-term sustainability. This high value suggests that its scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university maintains a Z-score of -1.142, indicating a very low risk that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.319. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's excellent result in this area suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of output.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of this risk, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 1.373. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its research is validated through competitive external channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.722, which, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 1.097. This suggests the university is more effectively moderating the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining better control than its peers, the institution shows a stronger commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, a practice that ultimately protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
