| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.768 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.033 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.230 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.281 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.839 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.527 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.189 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.391 | -0.390 |
Shiraz University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.415 that indicates strong internal governance and a performance generally superior to the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and a minimal gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership, demonstrating significant resilience against systemic risks prevalent in the country. Key areas of excellence, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, include top-tier national rankings in Veterinary (2nd), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (9th), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (9th), and Social Sciences (10th). This solid foundation directly supports the university's mission to "enrich society’s intellectual, cultural, scientific... spheres" and "add to the word’s base of knowledge." However, minor vulnerabilities, such as a moderate rate of publication in institutional journals and a slight tendency towards self-citation, require attention as they could foster academic endogamy, potentially limiting the global reach and external validation central to its mission. Overall, Shiraz University is in an excellent position to leverage its integrity strengths to further enhance its international standing, and it is recommended that it continues to reinforce its quality control mechanisms while actively promoting greater external collaboration to mitigate any risk of academic isolation.
The university demonstrates a prudent approach to the management of academic affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.768, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.615. This controlled rate suggests that the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could artificially inflate its institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's lower-than-average score indicates a healthy and transparent handling of collaborative acknowledgments, steering clear of strategic "affiliation shopping."
Shiraz University showcases a remarkable preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level. Its very low-risk Z-score of -0.437 stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.777, indicating that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are exceptionally effective. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in methodological rigor or recurring malpractice. The university's outstanding performance in this area points to a strong culture of integrity where the correction of the scientific record is handled responsibly and pre-publication vetting is robust, preventing the vulnerabilities seen elsewhere in its environment.
The institution's rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.033) reveals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.262), suggesting this is an area that warrants review before escalating. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this slightly elevated rate could signal the early stages of a scientific "echo chamber." It serves as a minor warning that the institution's academic influence may be at risk of being oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community, potentially leading to endogamous impact inflation.
The university displays strong institutional resilience, effectively mitigating the systemic risks associated with publishing in low-quality journals that are prevalent at the national level. Its low-risk Z-score of -0.230 is a positive deviation from the country's medium-risk score of 0.094. This performance indicates that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university safeguards its reputation and ensures its resources are not channeled into "predatory" practices, a risk that appears more common in the wider national context.
The institution's very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.281) aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.952), confirming an absence of risk signals in this area. This consistency suggests that authorship practices at the university are well-calibrated to disciplinary norms. The data indicates a healthy environment that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and the risk of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency and avoiding "honorary" authorship practices.
Shiraz University successfully isolates itself from a concerning national trend regarding research leadership and impact dependency. Its Z-score of -0.839, indicating a very low gap, contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.445. This strong performance signals that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, not reliant on external partners. Unlike the national dynamic, where a wide gap suggests a sustainability risk, the university demonstrates that its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming its role as a driver, not just a passenger, in high-impact collaborations.
The institution demonstrates a more prudent management of publication practices than the national standard, with a Z-score of -0.527 that is notably lower than the country's average of -0.247. This reflects a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation. The university's controlled rate suggests it fosters an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
While operating in a national context where publishing in institutional journals is a common practice, the university shows differentiated management by moderating this risk significantly. Its medium-risk Z-score of 0.189 is substantially lower than the country's high medium-risk score of 1.432. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's more controlled rate indicates a healthier balance, reducing the risk that internal channels are used as "fast tracks" to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution's rate of redundant output is in complete alignment with its national context, reflecting a level of risk that is statistically normal for its environment. The Z-scores for the university (-0.391) and the country (-0.390) are virtually identical. This indicates that the university's practices regarding bibliographic overlap are typical of its peers. While the risk is low, this alignment suggests a shared standard in managing the fine line between the necessary citation of previous work for cumulative knowledge and the practice of "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity.
