| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.338 | 0.589 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.023 | 0.666 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.281 | 0.027 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.556 | 0.411 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.835 | -0.864 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.538 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.918 | -0.403 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.243 |
|
Redundant Output
|
5.060 | -0.139 |
Jashore University of Science and Technology demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exemplary practice alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.385, the institution shows commendable control in managing hyperprolific authorship and limiting publication in institutional journals, indicating a foundational respect for quality and external validation. Thematically, the university asserts its national leadership in key areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top 10 in Bangladesh for Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (6th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (8th), and Medicine (9th). However, this academic strength is critically undermined by an exceptionally high rate of redundant output (salami slicing), which directly conflicts with its mission "to foster new ideas and innovation... in a knowledge-based culture of excellence." This practice, along with elevated risks in self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, threatens to devalue its scientific contributions and compromise its goal of serving the nation and the world. To fully realize its mission, the university must urgently implement robust quality control mechanisms and authorship policies that prioritize substantive, innovative research over sheer publication volume, thereby ensuring its thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 1.338, notably higher than the national average of 0.589. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows a greater exposure to this particular risk. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's higher rate suggests a greater propensity for practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a dynamic that warrants closer monitoring to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.023, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.666. This indicates a differentiated and more effective management of pre-publication quality control. In a national environment where retractions are a medium-level concern, the university's performance suggests that its internal supervision and integrity mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks. This low rate is a positive signal of responsible research conduct and methodological rigor, where potential errors are likely being identified and corrected before they enter the scientific record.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: 0.281) is substantially higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.027), indicating a high exposure to this risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of the risk 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, a trend that should be reviewed to encourage broader engagement.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.556 for publications in discontinued journals, which is higher than the national average of 0.411. This reveals a greater institutional exposure to the risks associated with publishing in low-quality or predatory venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical standards, posing a severe reputational risk and highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.835, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.864. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of risk is as expected for its context and size. The data indicates that the university's authorship practices in large collaborations are consistent with national norms and do not show unusual signals of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This suggests a healthy balance between necessary large-scale collaboration and the avoidance of "honorary" authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.538 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its leadership-driven output, a value considerably higher than the national average of 0.147. This indicates a high exposure to the risk of "dependent prestige," where a significant portion of its scientific impact is derived from collaborations in which it does not hold an intellectual leadership role. This wide gap suggests that its scientific standing may be more reliant on external partners than on its own structural capacity, posing a potential risk to the long-term sustainability of its research excellence and inviting strategic reflection on fostering more home-grown, high-impact projects.
With a Z-score of -0.918, the institution demonstrates a very low risk regarding hyperprolific authors, performing better than the national average of -0.403, which is already in a low-risk category. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive indicator. The clear absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over metric-driven productivity, effectively controlling for risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution's Z-score for publications in its own journals is -0.268, showing almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.243. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 5.060, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national average of -0.139. This is a critical anomaly and the most urgent integrity concern identified. Such a high value indicates a systemic practice of data fragmentation or "salami slicing," where studies are artificially divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity metrics. This practice severely distorts the scientific evidence base, overburdens the peer review system, and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, requiring an immediate and thorough assessment of institutional publication policies and author ethics.
