Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.171 indicating a general alignment with best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in areas of authorship and publication channels, particularly with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths are complemented by a prudent management of redundant publications and a notable capacity to moderate the national trend in retracted output. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in Institutional Self-Citation and a systemic dependency on external collaborations for research impact. These integrity metrics provide a crucial context for the university's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, which place it among the national leaders in fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Veterinary, and Arts and Humanities. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly those related to self-citation and impact dependency, could challenge any institutional ambition centered on achieving genuine global excellence and fulfilling social responsibility through authentic scientific leadership. A continued focus on strengthening external validation and fostering internal research leadership will be key to ensuring that the university's strong reputation is built upon a foundation of unwavering scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.498, the institution's rate of multiple affiliations is slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this signal indicates that the university's activity in this area is just beginning to diverge from the national norm. It is advisable to review these patterns to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration and do not evolve into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

The university demonstrates effective and differentiated management of publication quality within a challenging national context. Its Z-score of 0.277, while indicating some retraction activity, is substantially lower than the country's average of 0.777. This suggests that the institution's internal quality control mechanisms are successfully moderating a risk that appears more common at the national level. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in pre-publication review or recurring malpractice; therefore, the university's ability to maintain a comparatively lower rate points to a more resilient integrity culture and responsible supervision.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 0.206 contrasting with the national average of -0.262. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers, pointing to a higher-than-average tendency toward internal validation. A disproportionately high rate of institutional self-citation can signal concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers" where academic influence is potentially oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition. This pattern warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation and merits a review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.145 indicating a very low incidence of publishing in discontinued journals, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.094. This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher training programs are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes an institution to severe reputational risks. The university's positive result here is a clear operational strength.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.184, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a profile that is consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national standard (-0.952). This absence of risk signals indicates that authorship practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms and that the university is not prone to issues of author list inflation. This is a positive finding, as outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates in this area can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 0.416 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.445, indicating that its performance reflects a shared systemic pattern across the country. This value suggests that, like its national peers, the university's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external collaborations rather than being fully structural. This pattern invites a strategic reflection on whether high-level excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.980 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors and aligning well with the low-risk national environment (-0.247). This is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture that prioritizes substance over volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's data suggests a commendable focus on quality and integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from a significant national risk. Its Z-score of -0.268 shows a very low reliance on its own journals, in stark contrast to the high national average of 1.432. This is a sign of robust governance, as the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review and gains global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of -0.441, which is lower than the national average of -0.390, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing redundant publications. This suggests that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as "salami slicing." The university's low score indicates a healthy approach that prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.