| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.037 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.692 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.315 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.227 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.970 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.091 | -0.390 |
Shahed University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance and specific, identifiable areas for strategic improvement. With an overall integrity score of -0.363, the institution demonstrates a commendable capacity to operate with greater rigor than the national average in several key areas, particularly in its minimal reliance on institutional journals, low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, and effective mitigation of publication retractions. These strengths provide a solid foundation for the university's academic mission. The institution's research excellence is reflected in its strong national rankings within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in high-impact fields such as Dentistry (ranked 18th in Iran), Medicine (42nd), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (54th), and Computer Science (57th). However, to fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence, attention is required for three medium-risk indicators: a tendency to publish in discontinued journals, a significant gap between overall impact and the impact of its own led research, and a moderate rate of redundant publications. Addressing these vulnerabilities will not only mitigate reputational risk but also enhance the sustainability and global recognition of its research, ensuring that its notable thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -1.037, significantly below the national average of -0.615, Shahed University demonstrates an exemplary low rate of multiple affiliations. This result indicates a clear and consistent pattern of institutional credit attribution that aligns with national standards of good practice. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional prestige. The university's very low score suggests its researchers and administrators maintain transparent and straightforward affiliation practices, avoiding any ambiguity or "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
The institution shows a low risk profile for retracted publications (Z-score: -0.371), demonstrating notable institutional resilience in a national context where this indicator presents a medium-level risk (Z-score: 0.777). This suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures or vulnerabilities observed elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can signal a failure in pre-publication review or recurring methodological issues. Shahed University’s performance indicates a strong culture of integrity and responsible research conduct, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they can damage the scientific record.
Shahed University maintains a prudent profile regarding institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.692, which is more rigorous than the already low-risk national standard of -0.262. This performance is indicative of a research culture that is well-integrated into the global scientific community and avoids insularity. While some self-citation is natural, high levels can create 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through internal validation. The university's low rate confirms that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than endogamous dynamics, reflecting a healthy and outward-looking research ecosystem.
The university shows high exposure to the risk of publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.315 that is more pronounced than the national medium-risk average of 0.094. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. A significant presence in journals that cease to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests that resources may be wasted on predatory or low-impact channels. This finding points to an urgent need to strengthen information literacy and guidance for researchers to ensure their work is disseminated through credible and enduring platforms.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -1.227, a very low value that is consistent with the low-risk national profile (Z-score: -0.952). This indicates that authorship practices at the university are well-aligned with international norms, showing no signs of author list inflation. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines where large author lists are common, high rates can dilute individual accountability. Shahed University's excellent result in this area suggests a culture of transparency and meaningful contribution in authorship, effectively distinguishing legitimate collaboration from honorary or unjustified authorship.
Shahed University exhibits high exposure to sustainability risk, evidenced by a Z-score of 0.970 in the gap between its total and leadership-driven impact, a figure notably higher than the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap signals that a significant portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reliance on external partners, while beneficial for visibility, suggests that its high-impact metrics may not fully reflect its own structural research capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting internally-led research to ensure that its academic excellence is both sustainable and endogenous.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the university displays a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, a rate significantly lower than the already low national average of -0.247. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy balance between academic productivity and the quality of scientific contributions. Extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual input and may signal issues like coercive authorship or data fragmentation. The university's very low score indicates a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of output, fostering responsible and credible scholarship.
The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from a common national risk, with a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, thereby preventing potential conflicts of interest and enhancing its global visibility. This commitment to external validation reinforces the credibility and competitiveness of its scientific production.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed in the rate of redundant output, where the university presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.091 while the country shows a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.390). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into multiple minimal publications to inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. This signal warrants a review of publication guidelines and author mentorship to ensure that research is communicated with a focus on significant new knowledge rather than publication volume.
