| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.693 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.460 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.125 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.144 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.162 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.377 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.217 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.039 | -0.390 |
Guilan University of Medical Sciences presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional best practice alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.402, the institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining academic independence, evidenced by very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, which effectively counters national trends toward academic endogamy. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by a significant rate of retracted output and a substantial gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These two indicators suggest systemic challenges in pre-publication quality control and a dependency on external partners for scientific prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas are in Dentistry, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The identified risks directly challenge the institutional mission to achieve "excellence of... research," as a high retraction rate is antithetical to excellence, and a reliance on external leadership questions the sustainability of its internal research capacity. To safeguard its mission and reputation, the university should leverage its robust culture of external validation to implement stricter quality assurance protocols and foster internal research leadership, thereby transforming its current dependencies into sustainable, self-driven excellence.
The institution demonstrates a prudent approach to academic collaboration, with a Z-score of -0.693, which is slightly more conservative than the national average of -0.615. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate suggests it is effectively managing these relationships to foster genuine scientific partnership without showing signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
This indicator presents a critical alert, as the institution's Z-score of 1.460 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.777. This suggests the university amplifies vulnerabilities in quality control that are already present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high Z-score alerts to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.125, far below the national average of -0.262. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard that already favors external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, the institution's very low value is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the university's work is well-integrated into the global scientific community, avoiding 'echo chambers' and demonstrating that its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 0.144, which is slightly above the national average of 0.094, the institution shows a higher exposure to publishing in journals that are later discontinued. This suggests the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.162) is higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.952), signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Although extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this deviation from the national norm suggests a potential trend toward author list inflation that could dilute individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and clearly distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political attributions before the issue escalates.
The institution displays a critical vulnerability in this area, with a Z-score of 3.377 that drastically accentuates the risk already present at the national level (Z-score: 0.445). This extremely wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a severe sustainability risk. It strongly suggests that the university's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding demands urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dependency that could compromise its long-term research autonomy and mission.
The institution's rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.217, is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.247. This indicates a normal risk level for its context and size. While extreme individual publication volumes can sometimes point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, the university's current profile is consistent with national standards. This alignment suggests that productivity levels are as expected for its environment and do not currently raise concerns about imbalances between quantity and quality.
The university demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from national publishing trends. Its Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is very low, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, it effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and seeks global visibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
With a Z-score of -1.039, the institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.390. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national environment that discourages such practices. This strong performance indicates that the university's research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity metrics by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units. This commitment to robust, non-redundant research strengthens the integrity of the scientific record.
