| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.389 | -0.386 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.845 | 2.124 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.253 | 2.034 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.303 | 5.771 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.352 | -1.116 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.603 | 0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.825 | -0.319 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.373 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.008 | 1.097 |
Al-Manara University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in operational governance but also critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.106, the institution's performance indicates areas where its practices exceed national standards, particularly in ensuring intellectual leadership, avoiding academic endogamy, and promoting external validation. These strengths are foundational. However, this positive profile is challenged by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, alongside a medium risk in Redundant Output. These issues directly conflict with the university's mission to achieve "distinction," "creativity," and the "highest university levels" of research quality. The institution's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Psychology (ranked 5th in Iraq), Physics and Astronomy (8th), and Environmental Science (13th), provides a platform of excellence that must be protected. To fully realize its mission, Al-Manara University should leverage its robust governance in low-risk areas to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these critical threats, thereby ensuring its reputation for quality and integrity matches its thematic leadership.
The institution demonstrates exemplary practice in this area, with a Z-score of -1.389, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.386. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a culture of transparency and clear attribution in its research partnerships.
A significant alert is noted in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 1.845. Although this is slightly below the critical national average of 2.124, it represents a serious vulnerability. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The institution is operating within a national context of high risk but shows marginally more control. Nevertheless, this value alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution shows remarkable resilience against national trends, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.253 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 2.034. This demonstrates that effective internal control mechanisms are mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the concerning signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This low value suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
This indicator represents a critical alert for the institution, with a Z-score of 4.303. While this performance is slightly better than the national average of 5.771, both scores are in the significant risk category. This high value constitutes a critical warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy and policy reinforcement to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution's Z-score of -0.352 signals a slight divergence from the national context, where the average score is -1.116. While the university's risk level is low, it shows nascent signals of activity in an area where the rest of the country is largely inert. This suggests a need for proactive monitoring. Although not yet a problem, this slight uptick could be an early indicator of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. It serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices continue to reflect necessary collaboration rather than evolving into 'honorary' or political attributions.
The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in its research autonomy, with a Z-score of -2.603, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.242. This result indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency observed elsewhere in the country. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is reliant on external partners, but this institution's very low score suggests its scientific excellence results from strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a key indicator of a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.825, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.319). Both the institution and the country operate at a low-risk level, but the university's lower score indicates more effective management of this particular risk. This suggests that institutional policies or culture successfully prevent potential imbalances between quantity and quality, discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The university exhibits a robust and independent publication strategy, with a Z-score of -0.268, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk national trend (1.373). This performance indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating that it does not use internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 2.008, which is notably higher than the national average of 1.097. Although both operate at a medium-risk level, the university appears more prone to this behavior than its peers. This high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This dynamic, which prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge, can distort the available scientific evidence and warrants a review of academic productivity incentives.
