03-08-2025
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
