| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.333 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.005 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.635 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.114 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.626 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.911 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.453 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.187 | -0.390 |
Damghan University presents a balanced and robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of -0.139 that indicates effective risk management. The institution's primary strengths lie in its demonstrated intellectual autonomy and global outlook, evidenced by a very low dependency on external collaborations for impact and minimal use of institutional journals for publication. These practices stand in stark contrast to national trends, showcasing a strong internal governance framework. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this solid foundation supports leading national positions in key thematic areas, including Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 14th in Iran), Energy (18th), Environmental Science (35th), and Engineering (37th). This performance directly aligns with the university's mission to "advance the frontiers of science" and "collaborate with national and international scientific centers." However, moderate risks in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals present a challenge to this mission, as they could foster academic insularity and compromise the quality of dissemination, undermining the goal of educating "knowledgeable researchers." To fully realize its strategic vision, Damghan University should leverage its clear strengths in research leadership and quality control to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its contributions remain both impactful and unimpeachable.
With a Z-score of -0.333, the university's rate of multiple affiliations is slightly higher than the national average of -0.615, though both fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation could be an early signal of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that all affiliations reflect genuine and substantial collaboration, maintaining transparency in institutional contributions.
Damghan University demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience in its quality control processes, with a Z-score of -0.005, indicating a near-zero rate of retracted publications. This performance is particularly noteworthy when compared to the national average of 0.777, which falls into a medium-risk category. This contrast suggests that the university's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are highly effective, acting as a filter against the systemic vulnerabilities present in the wider environment. This strong record signifies a mature integrity culture, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or methodological failures that often lead to retractions.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national norm in its self-citation practices, with a Z-score of 0.635 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.262. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to citation patterns that can signal scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This trend risks an endogamous inflation of the institution's perceived impact, suggesting its academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community.
The university's Z-score of 0.114 for publications in discontinued journals is nearly identical to the national average of 0.094, placing both in the medium-risk category. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, suggesting the institution's practices are influenced by a shared national vulnerability in selecting publication venues. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it indicates that a portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This shared behavior exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and highlights an urgent, system-wide need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.626, the university's rate of hyper-authored output is low but slightly higher than the national baseline of -0.952. This small gap signals an incipient vulnerability. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where massive author lists are not standard, such a trend can be an early indicator of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a review of authorship policies to ensure that all contributions are transparent and substantive, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from the practice of granting 'honorary' or political authorships.
Damghan University exhibits a profile of preventive isolation and strong intellectual leadership, with an exceptionally low-risk Z-score of -0.911. This result is in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.445, which indicates a medium-risk dependency on external partners for impact. The university’s performance demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This robust internal capacity ensures that its high-impact research is sustainable and reflects genuine institutional excellence.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.453, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.247, despite both being in the low-risk category. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with greater control than its national peers. By maintaining a lower rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively mitigates risks associated with an excessive focus on quantity, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and ensuring that productivity does not come at the cost of quality.
The university demonstrates a clear and positive disconnection from national publishing trends, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, compared to a medium-risk national average of 1.432. This indicates a strong commitment to global standards and external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review. This practice enhances its international visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research.
With a Z-score of -0.187, the university's rate of redundant output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.390, signaling an incipient vulnerability even within a low-risk context. While citing previous work is a necessary part of science, the greater degree of bibliographic overlap here could be an early warning of data fragmentation practices, where a single study is divided into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This trend warrants internal monitoring to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume.
