| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.830 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.305 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.372 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.137 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.116 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.092 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.314 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.525 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.965 | -0.390 |
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile with a score of 0.747, reflecting a robust foundation in several key areas of research practice. The institution exhibits notable strengths, particularly in its exceptionally low rates of redundant output (salami slicing) and hyper-authored publications, alongside prudent management of institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two significant areas of concern: a high rate of retracted output and a notable concentration of hyperprolific authors, which require immediate strategic attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's outstanding academic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the top national institutions in key thematic areas such as Veterinary (3rd in Iran), Chemistry (9th in Iran), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (16th in Iran). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to retractions and hyperprolificity—pose a direct threat to any mission centered on academic excellence, research integrity, and societal trust. To safeguard its well-earned reputation and ensure its research practices fully align with its thematic leadership, it is recommended that the university leverages its existing strengths to develop targeted interventions aimed at mitigating these specific vulnerabilities.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.830, which is slightly lower and more favorable than the national average of -0.615. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration, demonstrating more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the institution's controlled rate suggests it effectively avoids practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions in its research output.
With a Z-score of 2.305, the institution's rate of retracted output is significantly higher than the national average of 0.777. This finding suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. A high Z-score in this indicator is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this rate points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, possibly indicating recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific credibility.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.372, a healthier figure than the national average of -0.262. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the risks of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This commitment to external validation reinforces the idea that its academic influence is driven by recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.137, indicating a low rate of publication in discontinued journals, which contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.094. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects itself from severe reputational damage and shows a strong commitment to due diligence in selecting credible dissemination channels, preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.116, the institution displays an exceptionally low incidence of hyper-authored output, well below the already low national average of -0.952. This result reflects a commendable consistency in maintaining sound authorship practices, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a secure national environment. This demonstrates that the institution effectively avoids the inflation of author lists, ensuring that individual accountability and transparency are not diluted and that credit is assigned appropriately, clearly distinguishing its practices from questionable 'honorary' authorship.
The institution reports a Z-score of 0.092 in this indicator, a significantly more balanced value compared to the national average of 0.445. This suggests a differentiated and more effective management strategy, as the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common at the national level. A smaller gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, suggesting that its high-impact research is largely driven by its own structural capabilities rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of 2.314 for hyperprolific authors marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.247. This atypical level of risk activity is an outlier within the national context and calls for a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This high indicator serves as a critical alert for potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.525 for publications in its own journals is considerably lower than the national average of 1.432. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The institution's moderate score suggests it is successfully balancing local dissemination with the pursuit of external validation, thereby avoiding the risks of academic endogamy and ensuring its research undergoes independent peer review to gain global visibility.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.965, indicating a very low rate of redundant output, which is significantly better than the national average of -0.390. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. A low value in this indicator is a strong sign that the university discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This reflects a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication volume.
