Hamadan University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Hamadan University of Medical Sciences presents a profile of notable strengths and specific vulnerabilities, reflected in an overall integrity risk score of 1.176. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Redundant Output, indicating robust governance in collaborative and publication practices. However, significant risks are concentrated in the Rate of Retracted Output and an exceptionally high Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, which demand immediate strategic attention. These challenges contrast with the university's clear thematic leadership, evidenced by its high national rankings in Dentistry (6th) and Medicine (13th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This academic excellence is central to its mission of promoting human health through professional education and research. Yet, the identified integrity risks, particularly those suggesting potential gaps in quality control and a tendency toward academic endogamy, could undermine the credibility and global impact of its scientific contributions. To fully align its operational integrity with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the university prioritize a review of its pre-publication quality assurance processes and its policies regarding internal journals, thereby safeguarding its well-earned academic reputation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.933 is firmly in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a consistent and low-profile approach to academic collaboration, where the absence of risk signals is in line with the national standard. The data suggests that affiliations are managed transparently and legitimately, reflecting genuine researcher mobility and partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.601, the institution significantly exceeds the national average of 0.777, indicating an accentuation of a vulnerability present in the national system. While some retractions result from honest error correction, a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This elevated score alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation and ensure research reliability.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.714, which is lower than the national average of -0.262. This suggests that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value indicates that the institution's work is being validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-reference and ensuring its impact is based on external recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.087 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.094, reflecting a systemic pattern shared at the country level. This alignment suggests that the moderate risk of publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards is a widespread issue rather than an institutional anomaly. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid channeling research into predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.715, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.952, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while hyper-authorship is not a major issue, the institution shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, a rising trend in this indicator can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. Monitoring is advised to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and merit-based.

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

The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.545 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low—signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from its own core capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.735, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.247, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. A review is needed to ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of 7.275 is a critical red flag, drastically amplifying a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (1.432). This extreme dependence on its own journals raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This score warns of severe academic endogamy, where research may be bypassing independent external peer review. This practice limits global visibility and suggests internal channels might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation, posing a serious threat to institutional credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates excellent control in this area, with a Z-score of -0.702 placing it in the very low-risk category, consistent with the low-risk national context (-0.390). The complete absence of risk signals aligns with national standards and indicates that the university's researchers adhere to best practices, avoiding data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This reflects a commitment to producing substantive, coherent studies that prioritize significant new knowledge over artificially inflating publication volume.