Aqaba University of Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Aqaba University of Technology presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating significant strengths in research culture alongside critical areas requiring immediate strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of 0.676, the institution excels in maintaining very low-risk levels for retracted output, hyper-prolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust internal quality controls and a culture that prioritizes responsible conduct. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by a significant-risk alert for publishing in discontinued journals and medium-risk flags for multiple affiliations, dependency on external leadership for impact, and redundant publications. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's commitment to "high quality expertise" and "cultural, social and economic progress," as they risk reputational damage and undermine the reliability of its scientific contributions. The institution's notable thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Business, Management and Accounting and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, must be protected by addressing these integrity gaps. A focused strategy to enhance publication literacy and reinforce authorship policies will be crucial to align its operational practices fully with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.914 is slightly above the national average of 0.836, placing both at a medium level of alert. This alignment suggests the university is exposed to a systemic pattern of behavior common in its environment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could dilute the institution's unique brand and misrepresent its research capacity. A review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, positioning it as a model of preventive isolation compared to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score 0.101). This result is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control and a robust culture of scientific integrity. Unlike the broader national context, the university does not show signs of the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that often lead to a high volume of retractions. This performance confirms that its supervision and methodological rigor are successfully safeguarding the reliability of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits considerable resilience against the national trend of self-citation, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.447 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 1.075. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic isolation prevalent in the region. By maintaining a low rate, the university avoids creating 'echo chambers' where its work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice reinforces the global recognition of its research and protects it from the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than community validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 3.914 for output in discontinued journals is a significant-risk red flag, sharply accentuating the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score 2.544). This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. Such a high score indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and immediate need to implement training programs on information literacy and responsible publishing to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.327, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile for hyper-authored publications, consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.808). This alignment demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area, suggesting that authorship practices are well-calibrated to disciplinary norms. The data indicates that the university successfully avoids the inflation of author lists, a practice that can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This responsible approach helps distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 2.399 indicates a high exposure to impact dependency, a vulnerability that is far more pronounced than at the national level (Z-score 0.170). This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily reliant on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This metric invites a strategic reflection on whether the university's high-impact results stem from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from a tactical positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role. Fostering homegrown research leadership should be a key priority.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a commendable preventive isolation from the risk of hyperprolific authorship, with a very low Z-score of -1.413 that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national trend (Z-score 0.332). This result points to a healthy institutional culture that balances productivity with quality, successfully avoiding the extreme individual publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data suggests the university's environment does not encourage dynamics such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without genuine participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk national tendency (Z-score 0.610) of publishing in its own journals. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking independent, external peer review and achieving global visibility for its research. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house publications, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than being pushed through internal 'fast tracks' that may serve to inflate CVs without rigorous scrutiny.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.107 for redundant output indicates a higher exposure to this practice compared to the national average of 0.522. This medium-risk value serves as an alert for the potential fragmentation of data, or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into multiple minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the scientific evidence available to the community but also overburdens the peer-review system. It suggests a need to reinforce institutional policies that prioritize the publication of significant, new knowledge over sheer volume.