Shakarim University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shakarim University demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, with a global score of 1.006 that reflects a solid foundation but also highlights specific, critical areas for strategic intervention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low risk of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and publication in institutional journals, indicating strong internal governance in authorship and affiliation practices. Furthermore, the university shows commendable resilience by maintaining a lower rate of retracted output and institutional self-citation compared to national trends. These positive signals are complemented by significant thematic strengths, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing the university among the top national performers in key areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences and Environmental Science, alongside strong positioning in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Energy. However, this positive landscape is severely compromised by a critical risk in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which not only mirrors a national vulnerability but significantly exceeds it. This practice directly threatens the university's core mission of academic excellence and social responsibility, as it risks devaluing its otherwise strong research contributions. The primary recommendation is to implement an urgent, targeted strategy to enhance due diligence in the selection of publication venues, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation and ensuring its valuable scientific work achieves the credible global impact it merits.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.325, a value indicating a very low risk that is notably more controlled than the national average of -0.015. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Shakarim University's score suggests its collaboration and affiliation practices are transparent and well-managed, avoiding any ambiguity or "affiliation shopping" that could compromise its academic identity.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.296, the university maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.548. This gap suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. The university's favorable score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are effective, protecting its scientific record from the vulnerabilities observed elsewhere and fostering a culture of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.183, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is significantly lower than the national average of 1.618. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The university's controlled score suggests it is striking a healthier balance, validating its work with sufficient external scrutiny and avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation that could misrepresent its influence on the global academic community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 6.955, a figure that not only indicates a significant risk but also dramatically surpasses the already critical national average of 2.749. This result constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in a high-risk practice within a country already highly compromised. 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 university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score in this area is -0.361, which is slightly higher than the national average of -0.649, though both fall within the low-risk category. This minor difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the institution shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's score, though low, suggests a need for vigilance to ensure all authorship is meaningful and to distinguish clearly between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 0.193 is almost identical to the national average of 0.199, both falling into the medium-risk category. This alignment indicates a systemic pattern, where the university's risk level reflects shared practices or dependencies at a national level. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being generated by internal capacity. This score invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, signaling a potential risk to long-term scientific sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for this indicator is -1.413, demonstrating a complete absence of risk signals and positioning it well below the national average of -0.980. This reflects a state of total operational silence, indicating that the institution's authorship patterns are even more conservative and secure than the already low-risk national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's very low score confirms that its researchers maintain a balanced and credible publication volume, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record and avoiding practices that prioritize quantity over quality.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university is perfectly aligned with the national average, which also stands at -0.268. This reflects an integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The university's very low score demonstrates that its scientific production is overwhelmingly channeled through external, independent peer-reviewed venues, ensuring its research is validated by the global community and maximizing its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution has a Z-score of 0.066, a medium-risk value that is substantially lower than the national average of 0.793. This suggests a differentiated management strategy, whereby the university is effectively moderating a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's comparatively low score indicates a more controlled approach to publication, prioritizing the communication of significant new knowledge over practices that distort the scientific evidence and overburden the review system.