| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.367 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.817 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.461 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.674 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.023 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.666 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
3.662 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.116 | 1.097 |
The University of Warith Al-Anbiyaa presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.400 indicating areas of significant concern alongside notable operational strengths. The institution demonstrates commendable performance in maintaining editorial independence, with a very low rate of output in its own journals, and shows resilience in managing its intellectual leadership, keeping its impact gap low despite national trends. However, these strengths are overshadowed by significant alerts in authorship and affiliation practices, particularly in the rates of hyperprolific authors and multiple affiliations, which are critically divergent from national norms. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity challenges coexist with recognized thematic strengths within Iraq, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 5th), Physics and Astronomy (19th), Social Sciences (19th), and Medicine (20th). The identified risks, especially those related to authorship and retractions, directly challenge the institutional mission to "Achieve scientific Authenticity," as they suggest a potential prioritization of metrics over methodological rigor. To safeguard its mission and build upon its academic strengths, it is recommended that the University implement targeted governance policies focusing on authorship criteria and affiliation transparency, thereby aligning its operational practices with its core commitment to scientific excellence and authenticity.
The institution's Z-score of 3.367 reveals a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.386, indicating an atypical level of risk activity that requires a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the institution's disproportionately high rate signals a potential systemic issue. This may point to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that could compromise the transparency and authenticity of its research contributions. An urgent review of affiliation policies is necessary to ensure they reflect genuine partnership rather than a tool for metric inflation.
With a Z-score of 1.817, the institution's rate of retracted output is a significant concern, although it demonstrates more control than the critical national average of 2.124. This attenuated alert suggests that while the institution is not immune to the systemic issues facing the country, it may have some mitigating factors in place. Nevertheless, a rate significantly higher than the global average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.461, a moderate level that is notably lower than the national average of 2.034. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's ability to keep this rate below the national trend indicates a healthier balance, reducing the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensuring its work is validated by sufficient external scrutiny rather than through endogamous impact inflation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.674 in this indicator, which, despite being a medium-risk signal, demonstrates relative containment compared to the country's critical Z-score of 5.771. This indicates that although some publications are channeled through questionable venues, the institution operates with more diligence than the national average. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. The institution's containment of this practice suggests an opportunity to further strengthen its information literacy programs to completely avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.023, which, while in the low-risk category, marks a slight divergence from the very low national average of -1.116. This indicates the emergence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are normal, a rising Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal, though minor, warrants observation to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential growth of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.666 is in the low-risk range and contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.242, demonstrating strong institutional resilience. This negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is robust and not overly dependent on external partners for prestige. This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national risk. It reflects a healthy, sustainable model where scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
A Z-score of 3.662 for hyperprolific authors marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.319, highlighting an atypical risk activity that requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal significant imbalances between quantity and quality. This high indicator alerts to potential risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand immediate review of authorship policies.
With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country average is a medium-risk 1.373. This shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding in-house publishing. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of 1.116 for redundant output is nearly identical to the national average of 1.097, indicating a systemic pattern. This risk level suggests that the institution's practices reflect shared norms or regulatory pressures at a national level. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior, which appears to be common in the environment, distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
