| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.492 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.624 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.016 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.079 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.650 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.813 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.649 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.413 | -0.390 |
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS) demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile, characterized by significant strengths in research independence and a commitment to external validation. The institution's performance is particularly noteworthy in its very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes global scientific dialogue over internal echo chambers. However, this positive outlook is tempered by medium-risk indicators related to the impact of its research leadership and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors, which suggest potential imbalances between collaborative prestige and internal capacity, and between publication volume and research quality. These vulnerabilities warrant strategic attention, as they could subtly undermine the university's mission to foster scholars who truly "excel" and to lead a "qualitative revolution" in medical education. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in core areas like Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, provides a robust foundation. To fully align its practices with its mission, KUMS is encouraged to leverage its strengths in research ethics to address these specific vulnerabilities, ensuring that its academic culture promotes sustainable, internally-led excellence and reinforces the integrity of its scientific contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.492, which, while low, is slightly above the national average of -0.615. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, and the current level is not alarming, the slight upward trend compared to the national context could signal early-stage strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to ensure that collaborative frameworks are transparent and that affiliations reflect substantive contributions rather than mere "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.624, the institution's rate of retractions is at a medium level, yet it demonstrates differentiated management by remaining below the national average of 0.777. This suggests that while KUMS operates within a national context where retractions are a concern, its internal control mechanisms may be more effective at moderating this risk. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in the integrity culture. In this case, the institution's ability to outperform its national environment indicates a positive, albeit partial, success in upholding quality control and methodological rigor.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.016, a very low value that is significantly better than the national average of -0.262. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's exceptionally low rate is a strong indicator that it avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international research conversations.
The institution's Z-score of 0.079 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.094, indicating a systemic pattern where its practices mirror those of the country. This medium-risk level constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The data suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to a shared, national-level need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.650, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national average of -0.952, though both fall within the low-risk category. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The data suggests that KUMS should review its authorship practices to ensure they reflect necessary massive collaboration rather than a drift towards 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby safeguarding transparency.
The institution's Z-score of 1.813 reveals high exposure to this risk, standing significantly above the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is much higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites critical reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where KUMS does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could challenge long-term research autonomy.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.649 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.247. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality at the institution, 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.
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 1.432. This exceptional performance shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, KUMS mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment strengthens its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.413 is almost identical to the national average of -0.390, reflecting statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context. This indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a prevalent issue at the institution. Its performance is aligned with the national standard, suggesting that its researchers generally prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
