| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.855 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.883 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.196 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.608 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.214 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.360 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.486 | -0.390 |
The University of Mazandaran presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.338 reflecting significant strengths in research autonomy alongside critical areas requiring immediate strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining intellectual leadership, with a very low gap between its total impact and the impact of its own led research, a practice that contrasts sharply with the national trend. This is complemented by very low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authored output, and publication in institutional journals, signaling a culture of individual accountability and a commitment to external validation. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a significant risk in the rate of retracted output, which is alarmingly high, and medium-level risks in institutional self-citation, redundant output, and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest national positions are in fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (25th), Arts and Humanities (29th), and Business, Management and Accounting (29th). While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its strongest research areas, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to implement robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms and enhance training on publication ethics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.855, which is lower than the national average of -0.615. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, surpassing the already low-risk standard observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s data suggests that its policies or practices effectively discourage strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This controlled profile reflects a focus on substantive partnerships over nominal representation, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 1.883, the institution shows a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the country's medium-risk average of 0.777. This finding suggests the university is not only susceptible to national vulnerabilities in research quality but actively amplifies them. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This pattern points beyond isolated errors to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.
The university's Z-score of 0.196 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk score of -0.262. This indicates a greater sensitivity to self-citation practices compared to its national peers. While a degree of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate could signal the formation of an academic 'echo chamber,' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.608 is in the medium-risk range and notably higher than the national average of 0.094, which is also at a medium-risk level. This demonstrates that the university has a higher exposure to this particular risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a concerning portion of the university's research is channeled through venues that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.214, a very low-risk value that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.952. This result demonstrates a consistent and commendable approach to authorship. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, indicating that the university's research culture promotes clear accountability and transparency in authorship attribution. This suggests a healthy distinction between necessary collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, reinforcing the integrity of its publication records.
With a Z-score of -1.360, the institution shows a very low risk, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.445. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the national trend of dependency on external partners for impact. A low value in this indicator is a sign of high scientific maturity and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's prestige is structural and built upon genuine internal capacity, with its researchers exercising intellectual leadership rather than relying on strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national low-risk average of -0.247. This finding indicates a strong alignment with national standards of responsible productivity. The absence of risk signals suggests a healthy institutional environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity of publications. This effectively mitigates the risks associated with hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or superficial contributions, and points to a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is valued over the inflation of metrics.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that stands in sharp contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.432. This indicates a clear strategic choice to avoid the risks of academic endogamy that are more common in its environment. By not depending on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for objective validation and global visibility. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, reinforcing the credibility and competitiveness of its research.
The university's Z-score of 0.486 places it in the medium-risk category, showing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.390. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to practices that artificially inflate publication counts. This elevated value serves as an alert for potential data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be divided into minimal publishable units. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
