| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.709 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.502 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.067 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.141 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.266 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.776 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.303 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.642 | -0.390 |
The Ferdowsi University of Mashhad demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.236 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, suggesting a culture that prioritizes accountability and external validation. These strengths are particularly notable when contrasted with national trends, positioning the university as a leader in responsible research practices within its context. This solid foundation supports its prominent national standing in key thematic areas, including Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 2nd in Iran), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (2nd), Arts and Humanities (8th), and Veterinary (10th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, to fully align with its mission of achieving "excellence," "professional ethics," and "compliance with international standards," strategic attention is required for the medium-risk indicators of Retracted Output and Institutional Self-Citation. Addressing these vulnerabilities will ensure that the university's pursuit of advancing the "frontiers of knowledge" is built upon an unshakeable foundation of transparency and global scientific dialogue, reinforcing its role as a leading institution in the region.
The institution's Z-score of -0.709, compared to the national average of -0.615, indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. This suggests that the university manages its affiliation practices with slightly more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are a normal part of researcher mobility and partnerships, this controlled rate reinforces that the institution's collaborative credit is earned through legitimate and transparent partnerships, avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
With a Z-score of 0.502, the university shows a medium level of retracted output, yet this is notably lower than the national average of 0.777. This demonstrates a differentiated management of research quality, suggesting that while some issues exist, the institution moderates the risk of retractions more effectively than many of its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate at this level suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than expected. This warrants a review to ensure these instances primarily reflect the honest correction of errors rather than signaling any systemic vulnerability in the institution's culture of integrity or methodological rigor.
The university's Z-score of 0.067 for institutional self-citation presents a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average is -0.262. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers, pointing to a need for monitoring. While a degree of self-citation is natural for building on established research, this elevated rate can signal a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.141 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.094, showcasing significant institutional resilience against a systemic national risk. This performance suggests that the university's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effective in mitigating the national trend of publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. By successfully steering its output away from discontinued or potentially predatory channels, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its research resources are invested in credible and impactful dissemination platforms.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.266, well below the national average of -0.952, the institution demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship. This low-profile consistency aligns with national standards for responsible authorship and indicates a healthy research culture. This practice ensures that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency, and effectively distinguishing legitimate large-scale collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The university's Z-score of -0.776 reveals a strong and self-sufficient impact profile, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.445, which indicates a wider gap. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as it suggests the university's scientific prestige is built on structural, internal capacity rather than being dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. This healthy balance confirms that the institution's excellence metrics are a direct result of its own research capabilities, ensuring long-term sustainability and academic sovereignty.
The institution's Z-score of -1.303 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.247, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors. This low-profile consistency with a healthy research environment suggests a strong institutional focus on quality over sheer quantity. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record and ensuring that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the high-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 1.432). This indicates a strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review over internal publication channels. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific output is validated through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's very low Z-score of -0.642, which is even lower than the national average of -0.390, signals an absence of risk related to redundant publications. This low-profile consistency aligns with best practices in scientific reporting. It suggests that researchers at the university are focused on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and respects the integrity of the peer-review system.
