Payame Noor University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Payame Noor University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.253 reflecting a balance of significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, alongside a commendable avoidance of academic endogamy through institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its research culture. However, this is contrasted by a significant alert in the rate of retracted output and medium-risk levels in publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output, which are more pronounced than national trends. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to "strengthen its scientific-research position" and develop "excellence virtue," as they suggest potential gaps in quality control and dissemination strategies. The university's strong positioning in thematic areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Arts and Humanities, Energy, and Psychology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, highlights its capacity for high-level research. To fully align its practices with its ambitious mission, it is recommended that the institution leverage its governance strengths to implement targeted interventions that address the identified integrity risks, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring the long-term sustainability of its scientific contributions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.227 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is well below the national average of -0.615, indicating an exemplary and conservative approach to author affiliations. This very low incidence suggests that the university's practices are in complete harmony with the national context, showing no signs of risk. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data, however, points to clear and transparent affiliation practices, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative framework.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university's Z-score of 1.732 for the Rate of Retracted Output is significantly higher than the national average of 0.777, pointing to a critical area of concern. This result suggests that the institution is not only mirroring a vulnerability present in the national research system but is intensifying it. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high value serves as an urgent alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.232, the university's Rate of Institutional Self-Citation is nearly identical to the national average of -0.262. This alignment indicates that the institution's citation practices are typical for its operational context and scale, showing no unusual signals of risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The university's performance in this metric is within the expected range, suggesting a healthy balance between building on internal work and engaging with the broader scientific community, without indications of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that might artificially inflate its impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.250 for output in discontinued journals is notably higher than the national average of 0.094. This indicates that, within a national context where this is already a medium-risk issue, the university is more susceptible to this particular vulnerability. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant 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 wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university demonstrates excellent control over authorship norms, with a Z-score of -1.279 for hyper-authored output, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.952. This result reflects a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns perfectly with the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. The university's very low score in this area suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' attributions.

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

The university's Z-score of 0.628 for the impact gap is higher than the national average of 0.445, signaling a heightened exposure to risks related to scientific dependency. This value indicates a wider-than-average positive gap, where the institution's overall impact is significantly more reliant on external collaborations than on research where it holds intellectual leadership. While it is common for institutions to rely on partners for impact, a large gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.263, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.247. This demonstrates a strong, low-risk profile consistent with national expectations for research integrity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's excellent result in this indicator suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals contrasts sharply with the high national average of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear and effective separation from a problematic trend prevalent in its national environment. The institution's very low reliance on its own journals for publication suggests it is successfully avoiding the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the university enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 0.071 for redundant output marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.390. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to practices associated with 'salami slicing' than its national peers. While citing previous work is essential, massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate data fragmentation to artificially inflate productivity. This medium-risk value serves as an alert that some research may be divided into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the contribution of significant new knowledge. A review of publication strategies may be warranted to ensure research is presented in its most coherent and impactful form.