**Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *There is a positive relationship between the scientific research objectives of HEIs and the scientific research output of lecturers.*

To the best of our knowledge, decentralization has not been considered a scale in any quantitative research model. However, some studies have found a positive correlation between decentralized organizations, the autonomy of HEIs, lecturers, and lecturers' scientific research output. The work by [20] showed that an effective research apparatus feature is the "assertive-participative management" mechanism characterized by management decisions with wide participation by stakeholders. The work by [38] also mentioned that this mechanism, which is characterized by decentralization and empowerment, has a positive impact on scientific research output. In addition, Ref. [20,22,30] showed that the autonomy of the organization and lecturers is among the most contributing factors to scientific research achievements. Therefore, this research generalizes and supplements this new scale in the proposed model. Hence, the second hypothesis was proposed:

**Hypothesis 2 (H2).** *There is a positive relationship between decentralization and the scientific research output of lecturers.*

Concerning leadership, Ref. [30] defined that the leadership factor group has the greatest positive impact on scientific research output among several factors. The authors of [9] argued that both organizational (i.e., university) leaders and group leaders are important to the effectiveness of creation. The work by [18] also demonstrated that the support of leaders for scientific research contributes to improving scientific research output by creating a departmental research atmosphere. Notably, Ref. [20] investigated the leadership characteristics of productive research organizations, namely, that they are highlyregarded, have able scholars, are research-oriented, emphasize an assertive-participative style, fill critical roles in areas such as management and fundraising, and keep goals visible. Basing on these findings, the third hypothesis was proposed:

**Hypothesis 3 (H3).** *There is a positive relationship between leadership and the scientific research output of lecturers.*

Concerning support for scientific research activities, several authors emphasized the role of creating collaborative opportunities and environments for academic staff. The studies by [13,14,28,45] identified that collaboration was a key determinant of international publishing. Therefore, it was recommended that HEIs should establish research groups and collaboration with international and domestic peers to enhance their research productivity. The work by [29] and [35] showed that the university's explicit support of scientific research activities has a positive effect on lecturers' scientific research results. The authors of [19] found that ongoing supportive activities create a culture that values research, thereby influencing the conscientiousness and scientific research results of scientists. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was proposed:

**Hypothesis 4 (H4).** *There is a positive relationship between support for scientific research activities and the scientific research output of lecturers.*

In relation to policies for lecturers, Ref. [13,16] argued that time available for research purposes was a key factor for international scientific publishing. The work by [16] showed that university policies and job satisfaction had a positive effect on scientific research productivity among academic staff. The study by [11] revealed a positive relationship between research productivity and having tenure, rewards, promotion, and salary. The study by [35] revealed that the policy of recruiting lecturers and signing contracts based on lecturers' scientific research capacity can enhance their overall research performance. Similarly, income policy was considered by [17] and [23], while promotion policy was considered by [37] and [38]. Notably, Ref. [20] reported several characteristics of productive research organizations. The first is recruitment and selection, whereby significant effort is expended to recruit and hire members who have the training, goals, commitment, and socialization that match the institution. The second characteristic is rewarding, whereby research is rewarded equitably and in accordance with predefined benchmarks of achievement. Hence, the fifth hypothesis was proposed:
