| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.536 | 0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | 0.455 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
7.168 | -0.371 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.157 | 0.812 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.261 | -0.759 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-4.297 | 0.410 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.246 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.977 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.262 | -0.066 |
The University of Buraimi presents a profile of pronounced strengths and specific, high-impact vulnerabilities, reflected in an overall integrity score of 0.299. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in key areas, showing very low risk in hyper-authorship, hyperprolificacy, impact dependency, and use of institutional journals. These strengths indicate a solid foundation of internal capacity and ethical research conduct. However, this positive landscape is critically undermined by a significant risk in institutional self-citation and medium-level risks in publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output. Thematically, the university shows notable strength and leadership within Oman, particularly in Computer Science (ranked 1st), Mathematics (4th), and Social Sciences (5th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. These high-risk integrity indicators, especially the insular citation patterns, directly challenge the pursuit of global excellence and social responsibility inherent to a university's mission. They suggest that the institution's recognized thematic impact could be perceived as artificially inflated, potentially hindering its international standing. To secure its reputation and build upon its clear academic strengths, it is recommended that the University of Buraimi implement a targeted strategy focused on diversifying its citation impact and enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection.
The University of Buraimi shows a Z-score of -0.536, a notably low value compared to the national average of 0.062. This demonstrates a high degree of institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s prudent profile suggests robust policies are in place to prevent strategic "affiliation shopping" or other practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reflecting strong internal governance.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the institution maintains a risk level well below the national average of 0.455. This performance indicates effective institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the risks of research misconduct or error that appear more frequently at the national level. A low rate of retractions is a positive signal of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, indicating that the university's pre-publication review processes are functioning effectively to uphold the integrity of its scientific output.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 7.168, a value that represents a severe discrepancy when contrasted with the low national average of -0.371. This risk activity is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This critical value warns of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.
The university's Z-score of 2.157 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.812, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. Although this is a shared challenge within the country, the institution is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.261, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.759. This low-profile consistency suggests that authorship practices at the university are well-governed and transparent. The data indicates a healthy alignment with international norms, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like "honorary" authorships, thereby reinforcing individual accountability in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of -4.297 is exceptionally low, signaling a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.410). This result is a strong indicator of sustainable and autonomous research capacity. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by research where its own members exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a mature research ecosystem with real internal capacity, a key marker of long-term scientific excellence.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is firmly in the very low-risk category, outperforming the already low national average of -0.246. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy research environment where productivity is balanced with quality. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or an excessive focus on quantity over meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score of 0.977). By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and credibility, and prevents the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without competitive scrutiny.
With a Z-score of 0.262, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.066. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its peers. This value serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such "salami slicing" can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, warranting a review to ensure that publications represent significant and novel contributions to knowledge.
