| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.335 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.821 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.359 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.105 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.271 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.793 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.322 | -0.390 |
Shahrekord University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.178 indicating performance that is stronger than the global baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, effectively insulating itself from several risk factors prevalent at the national level. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level for Retracted Output, which mirrors a national trend, and a moderately elevated rate of Institutional Self-Citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths are concentrated in Veterinary (ranked 20th in Iran), Social Sciences (25th), Computer Science (31st), and Energy (40th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks in retractions and self-citation could potentially conflict with universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility, as they may undermine the external validation and reliability of its research. To build upon its solid foundation, it is recommended that the university focuses on reinforcing its pre-publication quality control mechanisms and promoting broader external collaboration to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities and fully align its operational integrity with its areas of scientific excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.335, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.615. This result indicates a clear and well-governed approach to academic collaboration, showing no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” that can be signaled by higher rates. The university's performance in this area is a hallmark of transparency and aligns perfectly with a low-risk national environment, confirming a consistent and healthy practice.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.821, a medium-risk value that closely aligns with the national average of 0.777. This parallel suggests that the university is part of a systemic pattern where pre-publication quality controls may be facing challenges common throughout the country. A rate significantly higher than the global average, as observed here, serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It points towards a need to investigate whether recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor is present, requiring qualitative verification by management to strengthen the reliability of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.359 for institutional self-citation places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.262. This indicates that the institution is more susceptible to this risk factor than its national peers. A disproportionately high rate can signal the development of scientific 'echo chambers' where research is validated internally without adequate external scrutiny. This value warns of the potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
Shahrekord University shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.105 for publications in discontinued journals, demonstrating institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.094. This performance suggests that the university's control mechanisms and researcher training are effective in mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. By successfully guiding its researchers away from channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively avoids severe reputational damage and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.271, a very low value that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.952. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy and transparent authorship culture that is consistent with national standards. The data confirms that the university's practices are far from patterns that might suggest author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative research.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.793, the institution shows a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, a sign of institutional resilience against the medium-risk national trend (Z-score of 0.445). This result indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is built upon strong internal capacity. This sustainable model suggests that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine intellectual leadership, positioning the institution as a driver, not just a participant, in high-impact research.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk range, significantly below the national average of -0.247. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong positive signal, consistent with a national environment that already shows low risk. It suggests an institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or other dynamics that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low reliance on its own journals, a clear case of preventive isolation from a practice that poses a medium-level risk in the country (national Z-score of 1.432). By not replicating this national risk dynamic, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This strategy ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility while steering clear of internal 'fast tracks' that could inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.322, a low-risk value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.390. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it potentially escalates. While the current level is not alarming, it suggests a minor tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. Proactive monitoring of publication practices is recommended to ensure that research outputs remain coherent and prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over volume.
