| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.271 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.408 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.240 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.109 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.369 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.121 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.139 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.704 | -0.390 |
Shahrood University of Technology presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.075 indicating a performance that is generally aligned with expected standards but with distinct areas of strength and vulnerability. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in key areas, showing very low risk in its rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and publication in institutional journals. This suggests a culture of transparency and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by medium-level risks in the rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and particularly redundant output (salami slicing), which deviates significantly from the national trend and requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are most prominent in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Business, Management and Accounting. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, these identified risks, especially those concerning output fragmentation and retractions, could undermine the universal academic commitment to excellence and social responsibility. By leveraging its robust governance in areas of strength, the university has a solid foundation to develop a comprehensive integrity framework that addresses these vulnerabilities and reinforces its position as a producer of reliable and impactful knowledge.
The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.271, which is significantly below the already low-risk national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a clear and stable research environment, suggesting that the institution's affiliation practices are transparent and well-defined. The complete absence of signals related to strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit reinforces a culture of integrity. This low-profile consistency, which surpasses the national standard, points to robust internal governance regarding how researcher affiliations are declared and managed.
With a Z-score of 0.408, the institution's rate of retracted output is a medium-level concern, yet it indicates more effective management compared to the national average of 0.777. This suggests that while events leading to retraction occur, the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms may be more adept at moderating these risks than those in the broader national system. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in pre-publication review or recurring malpractice. In this context, the university appears to be mitigating a nationally prevalent risk with relative success, though the medium-level signal underscores the need for continued vigilance to uphold its integrity culture.
The rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.240) is statistically normal and aligns almost perfectly with the national average (Z-score: -0.262), falling squarely in the low-risk category. This indicates that the institution's citation patterns are typical for its context and size. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and reflects the consolidation of internal research lines. The current value confirms that the institution is not showing signs of concerning scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers' to inflate its own impact, but rather is engaging in a healthy scientific dialogue consistent with its peers.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals presents a medium-level risk (Z-score: 0.109), a finding that closely mirrors the national trend (Z-score: 0.094). This alignment suggests the challenge is systemic, likely reflecting shared difficulties across the country in identifying and avoiding low-quality or predatory publication venues. A significant presence in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in dissemination, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests resources may be wasted. This pattern indicates an urgent, system-wide need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines on journal selection to protect the integrity of the scientific record.
With an extremely low Z-score of -1.369, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of hyper-authored output, a profile that is even more rigorous than the low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.952). This is a strong positive signal, indicating that authorship practices are well-governed, transparent, and focused on meaningful contributions. This performance effectively eliminates the risks of author list inflation and 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability. It suggests that collaborative work at the institution is structured with integrity, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience and scientific autonomy, with a low-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research (Z-score: -0.121). This performance is a significant strength, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.445), which points to a broader systemic dependency on external partners for achieving impact. This finding suggests the institution's scientific prestige is sustainable and built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being an exogenous result of strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The rate of hyperprolific authors at the institution (Z-score: -0.139) signals an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly elevated compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.247), although both fall within the low-risk range. This subtle divergence warrants a review of publication pressures and authorship norms. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to underlying risks such as coercive authorship or an excessive focus on quantity over quality. Proactive monitoring of this trend is recommended to ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution shows a commendable preventive isolation from national publishing trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in output in its own journals, in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed at the country level (Z-score: 1.432). This indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy, the institution ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels. This practice significantly strengthens its scientific credibility and global standing.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in the rate of redundant output, where the institution exhibits a medium-level risk (Z-score: 0.704) while the country average remains in the low-risk category (Z-score: -0.390). This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the peer-review system. This indicator highlights a key area for intervention, requiring a review of institutional incentives to encourage the publication of more substantial and impactful research.
