RETHINKING THE RI² INDEX
Created by Prof Lokman Meho of the American University of Beirut, the RI² assigns institutions a numerical 'integrity risk' score based solely on two indicators: the number of retracted articles per 1,000 publications, and the share of papers published in journals later delisted from Scopus or Web of Science. Institutions are then divided into tiers from red flag (highest risk) down to white/low risk.
While the index claims to shine a light on environments vulnerable to compromised research integrity — especially where volume is prioritised over quality — it has come under fire. Scholars argue that the RI² offers an overly reductionist lens that fails to distinguish between honest revision, minor mistakes, and deliberate misconduct. Retracted papers may stem from benign causes like improper image permissions or authors voluntarily withdrawing — not necessarily fraud or error.
Furthermore, relying on this index poses structural unfairness to universities in developing contexts. Larger and more productive institutions will naturally have more retractions, and retroactive delistings of journals penalise authors who published in good faith under legit indexing status at the time. These institutions often face disparities in resources, language access, and oversight — factors the RI² does not adjust for.
The danger grows when the index is used to influence funding decisions, reputation, or global partnerships. Without institutional oversight or appeal mechanisms, universities— especially in the Arab world — are vulnerable to stigmatisation by an uncredited, unreviewed tool.
Research integrity cannot be captured in crude numbers. It thrives on trust, transparent correction mechanisms, peer engagement, and context-sensitive oversight. Indicators solely based on bibliometric outputs neglect the reality of academic environments. Even commentary by external evaluators emphasise that the index does not differentiate severity or intent behind retractions, making identical cases out of trivial procedural errors and outright scientific misconduct.
Rather than descending metrics from above, what is needed are tools that emerge from within — hybrid approaches combining peer review, institutional self-assessment, metadata audits, and qualitative analysis. These would recognise context, capacity and complexity.
As academic communities across the Arab region strive to raise research standards, the call is clear: reject metrics that criminalise productivity and transparency. Instead, champion fair, evidence-based and inclusive evaluation systems that reflect the nuance — and humanity — of scholarly integrity.
Dr Aya Akkawi
The writer is an Associate Professor at Sultan Qaboos University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
03-08-2025
- Observer
RETHINKING THE RI² INDEX
As universities worldwide navigate the competitive terrain of global rankings and research output, new performance indicators are surfacing that purport to measure academic integrity. Among these is the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²), which draws particular attention and concern. Created by Prof Lokman Meho of the American University of Beirut, the RI² assigns institutions a numerical 'integrity risk' score based solely on two indicators: the number of retracted articles per 1,000 publications, and the share of papers published in journals later delisted from Scopus or Web of Science. Institutions are then divided into tiers from red flag (highest risk) down to white/low risk. While the index claims to shine a light on environments vulnerable to compromised research integrity — especially where volume is prioritised over quality — it has come under fire. Scholars argue that the RI² offers an overly reductionist lens that fails to distinguish between honest revision, minor mistakes, and deliberate misconduct. Retracted papers may stem from benign causes like improper image permissions or authors voluntarily withdrawing — not necessarily fraud or error. Furthermore, relying on this index poses structural unfairness to universities in developing contexts. Larger and more productive institutions will naturally have more retractions, and retroactive delistings of journals penalise authors who published in good faith under legit indexing status at the time. These institutions often face disparities in resources, language access, and oversight — factors the RI² does not adjust for. The danger grows when the index is used to influence funding decisions, reputation, or global partnerships. Without institutional oversight or appeal mechanisms, universities— especially in the Arab world — are vulnerable to stigmatisation by an uncredited, unreviewed tool. Research integrity cannot be captured in crude numbers. It thrives on trust, transparent correction mechanisms, peer engagement, and context-sensitive oversight. Indicators solely based on bibliometric outputs neglect the reality of academic environments. Even commentary by external evaluators emphasise that the index does not differentiate severity or intent behind retractions, making identical cases out of trivial procedural errors and outright scientific misconduct. Rather than descending metrics from above, what is needed are tools that emerge from within — hybrid approaches combining peer review, institutional self-assessment, metadata audits, and qualitative analysis. These would recognise context, capacity and complexity. As academic communities across the Arab region strive to raise research standards, the call is clear: reject metrics that criminalise productivity and transparency. Instead, champion fair, evidence-based and inclusive evaluation systems that reflect the nuance — and humanity — of scholarly integrity. Dr Aya Akkawi The writer is an Associate Professor at Sultan Qaboos University
Muscat Daily
16-07-2025
- Muscat Daily
Team charts strategy to elevate Oman's Global Innovation ranking
Muscat – Oman's national team tasked with improving the sultanate's standing in the Global Innovation Index (GII) convened its 21st meeting on Wednesday to review strategic developments and simulation tools that could support future policy shifts. Chaired by H E Dr Saif bin Abdullah al Hadabi, Undersecretary at Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, the meeting focused on applying recommendations from a recent regional workshop organised by United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). The workshop introduced a simulation system aimed at helping Arab policymakers assess gaps and build targeted innovation strategies. Team members discussed methodologies presented at the workshop, including the use of simulation tools to analyse GII indicators and build improvement scenarios. They also reviewed progress in formulating a medi-um-term strategic plan and outlined operational steps for both the policies and initiatives team and data management team. The GII team operates under the National Competitiveness Committee and aims to improve Oman's global innovation ranking through a unified, cross-sectoral approach. It coordinates efforts with Oman Vision 2040 Implementation Follow-up Unit, the National Centre for Statistics and Information, and other stakeholders.
Observer
16-07-2025
- Observer
Meeting looks at enhancing Oman's performance in Global Innovation Index
MUSCAT: The National Team in charge of enhancing the performance of the Sultanate of Oman in the Global Innovation Index held its twenty-first meeting under the chairmanship of Dr Saif bin Abdullah al Haddabi, Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation for Research and Innovation, Head of the National Team for the Global Innovation Index. The meeting reviewed the outcomes and recommendations of a working session on the International Policy Indicators Simulation System for policymakers in the Arab region. Organised by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the session discussed the mechanisms of simulation and methodologies on analysing the indicators proposed during the session. The protocols included means to measure gaps and formulate scenarios on enhancing Oman's performance in the Global Innovation Index. The meeting also reviewed the progress made in preparing a medium-term plan and procedural steps to support the team tasked with policies and initiatives and the data management team. The Global Innovation Index team stems from the National Competitiveness Committee. It is entrusted with improving the Sultanate of Oman's performance in the Global Innovation Index by implementing an integrated approach to unify national efforts and engage stakeholders in the national innovation system. - ONA
