| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.721 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.923 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.383 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.315 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.857 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.156 | 1.097 |
Al-Bayan University demonstrates a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 1.050, the institution shows remarkable strength in preventing academic endogamy and authorship malpractice, outperforming national trends in areas such as institutional self-citation, hyper-prolific authorship, and output in its own journals. This solid foundation is further evidenced by the university's thematic excellence, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics, where it ranks among the top 15 institutions in Iraq according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this progress is severely undermined by significant risks in three key areas: a high dependency on external leadership for research impact, a concerning rate of publication in discontinued journals, and a pattern of redundant publications. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to provide a "unique scientific experience" and uphold "standards of conduct," as they risk compromising the quality and originality of its research output. To truly achieve a "distinctive level," Al-Bayan University must leverage its existing strengths in governance to implement targeted interventions that address these critical gaps, thereby ensuring its reputational and scientific growth is both sustainable and built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.721, which is more controlled than the national average of -0.386. This indicates a prudent and rigorous management of institutional affiliations. The university's approach appears more conservative than the national standard, effectively minimizing any potential signals of strategic "affiliation shopping." While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's contained rate suggests that its collaborative framework is transparent and well-governed, avoiding practices that could artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the university demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 2.124). This strong divergence suggests the institution functions as an effective filter, successfully insulating itself from the systemic issues that may be affecting its national peers. This performance indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and reliable. Rather than facing issues of recurring malpractice, the institution's low rate signifies a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that serves as a firewall against the country's wider risk landscape.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.923 in institutional self-citation, positioning it far from the medium-risk dynamics observed in the country (Z-score: 2.034). This pattern reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can affect its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low value strongly indicates that the university's work is validated by the broader international scientific community, not just through internal dynamics. This fosters genuine global impact and protects the institution from the risk of endogamous impact inflation, demonstrating a healthy integration into external research networks.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 5.383, a significant risk level that is, however, slightly more controlled than the critical national average of 5.771. This constitutes an attenuated alert; while the university is an outlier on a global scale, it shows marginally more restraint than its national context. Nonetheless, this high Z-score is a critical warning regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage. This suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and formalize publication policies to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.315, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship, a rate even lower than the already minimal national average of -1.116. This reflects a state of total operational silence in this area, confirming that authorship practices are well within standard, transparent norms. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can indicate inflation or dilution of accountability. The university's excellent result here suggests its research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship, reinforcing individual responsibility and transparency.
The university shows a Z-score of 4.857 in this indicator, a critical value that significantly amplifies the moderate vulnerability seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.242). This wide positive gap—where overall impact is much higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a serious risk to scientific sustainability. This high value suggests that the institution's prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. It calls for a deep reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where Al-Bayan University does not exercise intellectual leadership, making its perceived impact fragile and reliant on external partners.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, aligning with a national context that already shows low risk (Z-score: -0.319). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university's research environment fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or metric-driven behaviors. The university's lack of such signals is a positive sign of an academic culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer quantity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows virtually no reliance on its own journals for publication, a stark contrast to the medium-risk trend at the national level (Z-score: 1.373). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from practices that could lead to academic endogamy. By avoiding its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice mitigates the conflict of interest that arises when an institution acts as both judge and party, and it prevents the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for inflating publication counts without rigorous external scrutiny.
The university's rate of redundant output, or "salami slicing," reaches a Z-score of 4.156, a significant risk level that sharply accentuates the moderate trend observed nationally (Z-score: 1.097). This indicates that the institution is not just reflecting a national vulnerability but is a primary driver of it. A high value here is a critical alert for the practice of dividing a single coherent study into multiple "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This pattern of massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system. It suggests an urgent need to re-evaluate research assessment criteria to prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
