Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score (-0.337) that, while slightly below the global average, is underpinned by significant strengths in research governance. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in areas critical to academic credibility, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and a particularly notable disconnection from the national trend of publishing in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a culture that values external validation and responsible authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap in Impact between led and total output, and the Rate of Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas are Chemistry, Medicine, and Environmental Science. The identified medium-risk indicators, particularly those related to publication strategy and research fragmentation, could undermine the credibility and long-term impact of these core disciplines. To fully realize its academic mission, the university should leverage its solid integrity foundation to develop targeted policies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its pursuit of excellence is built on a bedrock of transparent and high-quality scientific practice.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.056, positioning it in the very low-risk category and favorably below the national average of -0.615. This result indicates a commendable alignment with national standards for affiliation practices, demonstrating an even more conservative approach than its peers. The data suggests that the university's collaborative activities are managed with high transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's very low rate provides strong assurance against strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and well-governed policy on academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, a significant achievement when contrasted with the country's medium-risk score of 0.777. This disparity suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent at the national level. A high rate of retractions can signal a failure in quality control, but this institution's low score points to a robust system of pre-publication review and responsible supervision. This indicates that its integrity culture is strong enough to prevent the kind of recurring methodological or ethical issues that might be affecting the broader national environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.361, placing it in the very low-risk category and substantially below the country's low-risk average of -0.262. This indicates a profound commitment to external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate confirms it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely earned through recognition from the international community, not through internal validation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.193 places it at a medium-risk level, which is a point of concern as it is higher than the national average of 0.094. This indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a segment of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational damage and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.358, the institution is in the low-risk category, similar to the national average of -0.952. However, the institution's score is higher, suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While both levels are low, this slight elevation indicates a greater tendency toward publications with extensive author lists compared to the national standard. This signal, though not yet critical, should prompt a review to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. It is important to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices before this trend escalates.

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

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.513, a medium-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of 0.445. This indicates that the university is more exposed than its peers to a dependency on external collaboration for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige may be more exogenous and dependent on partners than structurally embedded within the institution. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are the result of its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a supporting role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.957 is in the very low-risk range, a result that compares favorably to the country's low-risk average of -0.247. This demonstrates a healthy and well-regulated research environment, consistent with national standards but executed with greater control. The absence of signals in this area indicates that the university effectively avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme individual publication volumes. This suggests a culture that does not incentivize practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

A standout strength for the institution is its Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk), which represents a stark and positive contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 1.432. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university deliberately avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. By not depending on its own journals, the institution circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This strategic choice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility and shows a clear commitment to competing on the international stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.158, placing it in the medium-risk category, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.390 (low risk). This discrepancy indicates that the university is more sensitive to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This trend warrants review, as such practices can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.