Qom University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall integrity score of -0.149, Qom University presents a balanced but complex profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy alongside specific vulnerabilities requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas that signal strong internal governance, showing very low risk in the Gap between its total and led-research impact, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Hyper-Authored Output. These results indicate a commendable disconnection from some of the more challenging integrity dynamics observed at the national level. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, Rate of Retracted Output, and Rate of Redundant Output, which suggest a need to reinforce mechanisms for external validation and quality control. These integrity metrics provide a crucial context for the university's recognized academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge any university's core commitment to excellence and social responsibility by potentially undermining the credibility of its research. Qom University is well-positioned to leverage its demonstrated strengths in research autonomy and collaborative integrity to develop targeted policies that mitigate its vulnerabilities, thereby solidifying its reputation for both thematic excellence and scientific rigor.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.353, a value indicating an extremely low incidence of this phenomenon compared to the national average of -0.615. This result suggests a clear and consistent institutional profile where research credit is unambiguously assigned. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard, which itself shows a low tendency towards this practice. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate confirms a robust and transparent system for declaring affiliations, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.436, the institution shows a medium risk level for retracted publications, a figure that is notably more controlled than the national average of 0.777. This suggests a differentiated management approach where, despite operating in an environment with a shared tendency towards this risk, the university's internal processes appear to moderate the issue more effectively than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly above the global average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. In this case, the university's relative containment of the problem indicates that its quality control mechanisms, while not infallible, are performing better than the systemic average, though the presence of this signal still warrants a qualitative review of the underlying causes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.230 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.262. This discrepancy indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately higher rate signals a potential concern regarding scientific isolation or the formation of "echo chambers." The value warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.128 is statistically similar to the national average of 0.094, with both falling into the medium-risk category. This alignment suggests that the institution's performance reflects a systemic pattern, likely influenced by shared practices or information deficits at a national level. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The observed risk level indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid "predatory" practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.326 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.952. This demonstrates a consistent and low-profile approach to authorship, where the practice of author list inflation appears to be virtually non-existent. The university's alignment with, and even improvement upon, the low-risk national standard in this area is a positive sign of integrity. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the university's data confirms that outside of these contexts, it maintains clear accountability and transparency in authorship, effectively avoiding practices like "honorary" or political authorship.

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

With a Z-score of -0.997, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, indicating a negligible gap between the impact of its overall output and the output where it holds a leadership role. This result marks a preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed in its environment, as the national average stands at a medium-risk score of 0.445. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. Qom University's excellent score suggests that its scientific prestige is the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, demonstrating a sustainable and autonomous model of impact generation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.560 indicates a low-risk level, reflecting a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.247. This suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national average, effectively curbing the emergence of extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, hyperprolificacy often challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's controlled, lower-than-average score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that signifies a clear preventive isolation from national trends, where the average score is a medium-risk 1.432. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises concerns about conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's minimal reliance on its own journals demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential "fast tracks" to inflate productivity.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.347, the institution registers a medium level of risk, showing a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.390. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. Citing previous work is essential, but significant bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate data fragmentation or "salami slicing." The university's score serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics, a dynamic that can distort scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.