| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.484 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.629 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.193 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.802 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.784 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.711 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.088 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.982 | -0.390 |
Kashan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services presents a profile of notable strengths and specific vulnerabilities, reflected in an overall integrity score of 0.620. The institution demonstrates robust internal practices, with very low risk signals in institutional self-citation, output in its own journals, and redundant publications, indicating a healthy resistance to academic endogamy and data fragmentation. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant challenges, most critically a high rate of retracted output, alongside medium-risk indicators related to publication in discontinued journals, dependency on external research leadership, and the presence of hyperprolific authors. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific leadership is concentrated in key medical and biological fields, with its strongest rankings in Dentistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those concerning publication quality and retractions—pose a direct challenge to the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its strong thematic positioning, the university is advised to leverage its solid internal governance to implement targeted quality control and strategic publication policies, ensuring its research impact is both sustainable and built on a foundation of unquestionable integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.484, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This suggests an emerging vulnerability that warrants observation before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline could signal the initial stages of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. A proactive review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure all declared affiliations are substantive and transparent.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 1.629, substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.777. This finding indicates that the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This high Z-score is a critical alert to a potential vulnerability 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.
With a Z-score of -1.193, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of self-citation, well below the country's already low average of -0.262. This result shows a consistent and healthy pattern of external engagement, aligning with national standards of scientific openness. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that its work is being validated by the broader scientific community, effectively avoiding the risks of 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating a strong global integration.
The institution's Z-score of 0.802 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.094, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates that the university is more exposed than its national peers to the risks associated with publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a notable portion of the university's 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 enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.784, a low value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.952. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this slight increase relative to the national norm could be an early indicator of author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, distinguishing clearly between necessary massive collaboration and potentially dilutive 'honorary' authorship.
The institution shows a Z-score of 1.711 in this indicator, markedly higher than the national average of 0.445, placing it in a position of high exposure to dependency risks. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential risk to sustainability. The high value suggests that a substantial portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 1.088, the institution displays a medium-risk level for hyperprolific authors, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.247. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often 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—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution's low reliance on them mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing a culture that prioritizes competitive validation over internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution records a very low Z-score of -0.982 for redundant output, which is even lower than the country's low-risk average of -0.390. This result indicates a consistent and commendable practice that aligns with national standards for research integrity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' a practice of fragmenting studies to inflate productivity. The university's very low score in this area demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing complete, significant work, thereby respecting the scientific record and avoiding an undue burden on the peer-review system.
