| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.238 | 0.829 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.592 | 0.151 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.452 | 0.104 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
16.466 | 2.518 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.375 | -0.746 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-4.314 | 0.845 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.571 | 1.150 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.492 | 0.351 |
Applied Science University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall risk score of 4.240 indicating significant areas for strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary governance in several key areas, including a minimal rate of hyper-authored output, a negligible gap in research impact leadership, and a complete absence of risk related to output in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a robust internal capacity for producing self-led, impactful research with clear authorship attribution. However, these positive signals are critically overshadowed by significant vulnerabilities, most notably an exceptionally high rate of output in discontinued journals and an alarming rate of retracted publications. These issues, coupled with medium-risk exposure to institutional self-citation and redundant output, pose a direct threat to the university's mission of providing an education for the "academically competent." The detected integrity risks could undermine the perceived quality and competence of its scientific contributions. Despite these challenges, the university's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas like Mathematics (ranked 2nd in Bahrain), Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, provides a solid foundation. A focused effort to enhance due diligence in publication channels and reinforce pre-publication quality controls is essential to align its scientific practices with its established thematic excellence and core mission.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.238, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.829. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids risk dynamics that are present at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university’s very low score indicates a well-defined and transparent affiliation policy, ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately and avoiding any perception of "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing its independent academic identity in a context where such practices may be more common.
With a Z-score of 3.592, the institution's rate of retractions is significantly higher than the national average of 0.151, indicating a serious accentuation of a risk that is otherwise moderate within the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high value is a critical alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing towards possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score of 2.452 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.104, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the institution is more prone to this behavior than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 16.466 is exceptionally high and represents a critical alert, especially when compared to the national medium-risk average of 2.518. This finding suggests the university is severely amplifying a national vulnerability. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.375 is well below the national average of -0.746, demonstrating low-profile consistency. This excellent result shows that the absence of risk signals at the university aligns perfectly with the low-risk standard observed nationally. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or diluted accountability. The university's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its disciplines, effectively avoiding the risks of 'honorary' or political authorship and ensuring clear individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -4.314, the institution shows a remarkable strength, particularly when contrasted with the national medium-risk average of 0.845. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the dependency on external partners for impact seen elsewhere in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is exogenous and not structural. This institution's negative gap, however, indicates that its scientific prestige is the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, demonstrating a sustainable and self-reliant model for generating high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.571 is notably lower than the national average of 1.150, although both are classified as medium risk. This points to differentiated management, where the university appears to moderate risks that are more common across the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's more controlled score suggests that while the pressure to publish exists, its internal mechanisms are more effective than the national average at mitigating practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony. This complete alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security is a significant strength. In-house journals can sometimes create conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. The fact that this indicator shows no risk signals for either the institution or the country demonstrates a healthy and appropriate use of dissemination channels, ensuring that research undergoes independent external peer review and avoids the potential pitfalls of bypassing standard competitive validation.
The university's Z-score of 2.492 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.351, placing it in a position of high exposure to this risk despite both being in the medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more prone to this practice than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value alerts to a potential prioritization of volume over significant new knowledge, a practice that can distort the scientific evidence base and requires review.
