Jahrom University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jahrom University of Medical Sciences presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.115 that indicates a performance largely aligned with best practices, yet with specific, high-impact vulnerabilities requiring strategic intervention. The institution's primary strengths are rooted in its authorship and citation practices, demonstrating exceptionally low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, Multiple Affiliations, and Hyperprolific Authors. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes genuine collaboration and external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant risk in the gap between its total scientific impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership. Moderate risks in Hyper-Authored Output and publication in discontinued journals also warrant attention. The university's focused strength is evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings performance in Medicine, where it is well-positioned within Iran. While its formal mission was not specified, any ambition toward academic excellence and social leadership is challenged by the identified dependency on external partners for impact. This vulnerability could hinder the development of sustainable, sovereign research capacity. The university is encouraged to leverage its strong integrity culture as a foundation for a strategic plan aimed at cultivating internal intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its long-term prestige is both authentic and self-sufficient.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.066, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.615. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's affiliation practices are in complete alignment with the national standard, showing no signals of integrity risks. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's data confirms an absence of disproportionately high rates that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. However, the institution's favorable score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust, protecting it from the vulnerabilities in research integrity culture that can lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exemplary Z-score of -1.781, indicating a near-total absence of risk and a performance significantly stronger than the already low-risk national average of -0.262. This alignment with best practices suggests a high degree of integration with the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's extremely low rate effectively dismisses any concern of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.347, which indicates a higher exposure to this risk factor compared to the national average of 0.094. This pattern suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to channeling its research into outlets of questionable quality. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being directed to media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling a need to enhance information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a medium-risk Z-score of 0.319, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.952. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator's elevation warrants a review of local research practices. The score serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability. It points to a need to ensure that authorship is not being assigned on an honorary or political basis, but reflects meaningful contributions.

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

The institution records a Z-score of 5.744, a significant risk level that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (0.445). This extremely wide positive gap is a critical finding, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and not on its own structural capacity. A high value in this indicator signals a major sustainability risk, as it implies that its high-impact metrics result from strategic positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites urgent reflection on whether the institution is building real internal research excellence or primarily benefiting from an exogenous one.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.948 places it in the very low-risk category, a position that is even more secure than the low-risk national average of -0.247. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's excellent result in this area indicates that such dynamics are absent, reinforcing a culture where metrics do not supersede the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, marking a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (1.432). This result is highly positive, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy seen in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This commitment to external peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate academic output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.186, outperforming the already low-risk national average of -0.390. This strong result indicates that the university's research output is characterized by substance and integrity. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score confirms an absence of this practice, suggesting that its researchers prioritize the communication of significant new knowledge over the distortion of scientific evidence for volumetric gain.