University of Tabriz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Tabriz presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in scientific autonomy alongside critical vulnerabilities in research quality control. With an overall risk score of 0.450, the institution demonstrates a commendable capacity for intellectual leadership and a commitment to external validation, setting it apart from national trends. These strengths are foundational to its notable performance in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Energy, Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is severely challenged by a critically high rate of retracted publications and elevated risks in author and citation practices. These weaknesses create a direct conflict with the university's mission to "lead at the frontiers of knowledge" and disseminate "empowering science," as persistent integrity issues can undermine the credibility and impact of its research. To fully realize its vision, the University of Tabriz must leverage its core strengths in scientific independence to implement robust quality assurance mechanisms, ensuring its operational practices align with its stated commitment to excellence and sustainable development.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.670, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.615. This moderate deviation from the country's low-risk profile suggests the university is more exposed to practices that can inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the higher rate here warrants a review to ensure these are the result of genuine collaboration rather than strategic "affiliation shopping." This proactive monitoring is essential to maintain transparency and accurately reflect the institution's collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.460, the institution's rate of retractions is at a significant level, amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a score of 0.777. This critical finding suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. A rate this far above the global average is a serious alert to a potential weakness in the institutional integrity culture, pointing toward possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.446, indicating a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.262. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to developing 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived academic influence could be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and relevance of its research.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.094 is identical to the national average, reflecting a systemic pattern of risk shared across the country. This alignment indicates that a portion of scientific production, both at the university and national levels, is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the misallocation of research efforts into predatory or low-impact venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -1.285, indicating a very low risk that is well-aligned with the national standard (Z-score of -0.952). This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation. The data suggests that authorship practices at the university are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual responsibility in its scientific output.

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

The university shows a Z-score of -0.953, a clear point of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.445). This strong negative score is a positive indicator, demonstrating that the institution's scientific prestige is built on its own structural capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. Unlike the national trend, where impact is often tied to collaborations where leadership is not held, the university's excellence metrics appear to result from genuine internal capabilities, ensuring its scientific influence is both sustainable and autonomous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.449, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.247, indicating greater sensitivity to risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This elevated rate suggests a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, alerting to practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. It warrants a closer look to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, which can devalue the research process.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is a signal of preventive isolation from a problematic national trend (Z-score of 1.432). By demonstrating a very low dependence on its own journals, the university effectively avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. This practice underscores a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research and confirms that its output is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.033, while in the low-risk category, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the lower national average of -0.390. Although the risk is not yet significant, this subtle signal warrants review before it escalates. It suggests a need for vigilance against the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Proactive monitoring can ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.