Shahid Chamran University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shahid Chamran University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in individual research practices but overshadowed by a critical vulnerability in post-publication quality control. With an overall integrity score of 0.504, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in managing risks associated with hyperprolific authorship, redundant publication, and multiple affiliations, indicating a solid foundation of responsible authorship. This operational integrity supports its notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in fields such as Veterinary (ranked 18th in Iran), Engineering (29th), Psychology (34th), and Business, Management and Accounting (38th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a significant rate of retracted output poses a direct threat to the university's core mission of achieving academic excellence and social responsibility, as it undermines the trustworthiness of its scientific contributions. To secure its reputation and align its practices with its ambitions, the university is advised to leverage its strengths in authorial conduct to implement robust, systemic quality assurance mechanisms, thereby transforming this critical challenge into an opportunity for institutional leadership in research integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.191, which is notably better than the country's low-risk score of -0.615. This result demonstrates a consistent and healthy pattern of collaboration that aligns with the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's affiliations are the legitimate result of researcher mobility and genuine partnerships. This contrasts with practices where disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” confirming that the university's collaborative framework is grounded in sound scientific practice.

Rate of Retracted Output

A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.324, which indicates a significant risk level that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.777). This severe discrepancy suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than its national peers. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the average points to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be present, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's performance in institutional self-citation is statistically normal for its context, with a Z-score of -0.298, nearly identical to the national average of -0.262. This alignment indicates that the institution's level of self-referencing is as expected and does not present a risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The current rate suggests that the university is successfully avoiding the creation of 'echo chambers' and is not at risk of endogamous impact inflation, where influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.140, the institution's medium risk level reflects a systemic pattern shared with the national environment (Z-score: 0.094). This indicates that the challenge of publishing in questionable journals is not unique to the university but is a widespread issue. This shared practice 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, exposing the institution to reputational risks and highlighting a need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -1.106, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.952. This low-risk signal is a positive indicator of the university's authorship practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the university's controlled rate suggests it is effectively avoiding author list inflation outside of these areas. This helps ensure that individual accountability and transparency are maintained, distinguishing its collaborative work from practices involving 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The university demonstrates differentiated management in its scientific impact strategy, with a Z-score of 0.105, indicating a much smaller and healthier gap than the national average of 0.445. Although both fall within a medium-risk band, the university's ability to moderate this risk is a significant strength. A wide gap signals that prestige is dependent on external partners, not internal capacity. The university's lower score suggests its scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, pointing toward greater sustainability and genuine internal research capability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.001, reflecting a complete absence of risk signals that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.247). This demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates it is effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university shows effective management of its in-house publications, with a Z-score of 1.036, which, while in the medium-risk category, is notably lower than the national average of 1.432. This indicates the institution is better at moderating risks that appear to be common in the country. While institutional journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's more controlled rate suggests a reduced risk of academic endogamy and bypassing external peer review, thereby ensuring its research undergoes more competitive validation and achieves greater global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

In the area of redundant publication, the institution's Z-score of -0.813 signifies a very low risk, aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.390). This strong performance indicates a commitment to publishing substantive work. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score confirms that its researchers are focused on presenting coherent studies that contribute significant new knowledge, rather than distorting scientific evidence and overburdening the review system with minimally publishable units.