| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.263 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.108 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.145 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.946 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.851 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.737 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.220 | 1.097 |
Al-Zahrawi University College demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational governance but punctuated by a critical vulnerability. With an overall score of 1.053, the institution exhibits exemplary control over multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals, indicating a robust internal culture that effectively resists several national risk trends. This foundation of integrity supports its notable research strengths, particularly in areas such as Physics and Astronomy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive landscape is severely compromised by a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which not only surpasses the high national average but also directly threatens the institution's core mission. While the specific mission statement was not localized for this report, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is undermined when research is channeled into non-standard or predatory venues. It is therefore recommended that the College leverage its evident strengths in research integrity to urgently implement a rigorous policy for selecting publication channels, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its valuable scientific contributions achieve credible global impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.263, a value indicating a very low risk that is well below the national average of -0.386. This result suggests that the College's affiliation practices are highly consistent and transparent, showing no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” that can be signaled by disproportionately high rates. The absence of these risk signals, particularly in a national context where the risk is already low, points to a well-governed system where researcher mobility and collaborations are managed with exceptional clarity and integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.108, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed nationally (Z-score of 2.124). This marked difference indicates that the College functions as an effective filter against the systemic issues that may be affecting its environment. While retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, the country's high rate suggests a broader vulnerability in pre-publication quality control. The institution’s ability to avoid this trend points to robust internal review mechanisms and a strong integrity culture that successfully prevents recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor from escalating.
The institution's Z-score of 0.145 places it at a medium risk level, yet it demonstrates significantly better control than the national average, which also sits at a medium level but with a much higher Z-score of 2.034. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the College successfully moderates a risk that appears more common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s lower rate indicates it is less prone to the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' or the endogamous inflation of its impact. This reflects a healthier integration with the global research community and a greater reliance on external validation compared to its national peers.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 6.946, a critical value that places it in the significant risk category and exceeds the already high national average of 5.771. This metric constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the College not only participates in a problematic national trend but amplifies it. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy and policy reform to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.851, the institution shows a low level of risk, though this represents a slight divergence from the national context, which has a very low-risk Z-score of -1.116. This subtle difference suggests the presence of minor risk signals at the institution that are largely absent across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, this slight elevation warrants attention to ensure that all collaborations are justified and do not reflect 'honorary' authorship practices that could dilute individual accountability and transparency. It serves as a signal to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.737 indicates a medium risk level, showing a higher exposure to this vulnerability compared to the national average of 0.242. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The College's score suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk that is significantly below the national average of -0.319. This demonstrates an exemplary operational standard, with a complete absence of the risk signals associated with extreme individual publication volumes. This performance aligns with a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics. The data suggests the institution is effectively preventing potential imbalances between quantity and quality, showing no evidence of coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or other dynamics that can arise from hyper-productivity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 1.373). This preventive isolation is a significant strength. By not depending on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of -0.220 reflects a low-risk profile, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.097. This indicates that the College's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. The low score suggests that the institution discourages the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on publishing complete and significant new knowledge, rather than fragmented data, strengthens the integrity of its scientific contributions and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
