Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) presents a moderate overall risk profile (Score: 0.210), characterized by a combination of exemplary integrity practices and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in preventing redundant publications and maintaining a low rate of retracted output, outperforming national trends and signaling robust internal quality controls. However, areas of concern emerge in its high reliance on institutional journals, a notable dependency on external partners for research impact, and a tendency to publish in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities, while moderate, warrant review. The university's exceptional academic standing is evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, with top-tier national positions in critical fields such as Dentistry, Medicine, Computer Science, and Arts and Humanities. This academic excellence directly aligns with its mission to achieve the "highest international standards" and make a "socially responsible contribution." However, the identified risks, particularly those suggesting academic endogamy and a gap in intellectual leadership, could undermine these core values of ethics and global competitiveness. To fully realize its ambitious mission, SUMS is encouraged to focus on diversifying its publication channels and fostering internal research leadership, thereby ensuring its operational practices are as robust as its academic achievements.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.452 is within the low-risk range, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This profile suggests a normal level of collaborative activity, but also an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend compared to national peers serves as a signal to ensure that all affiliations reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A proactive review can help maintain the integrity of institutional partnerships before this metric escalates.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, showcasing institutional resilience, especially when contrasted with the country's medium-risk average of 0.777. This strong performance suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can result from honest error correction, but a rate significantly below the national benchmark indicates that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, protecting the institution from the recurring malpractice or systemic vulnerabilities that can damage an integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.260 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.262, indicating statistical normality and a risk level that is as expected for its context. This alignment suggests a healthy balance in citation practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The institution’s score indicates it is successfully avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.226 reflects a medium-risk level, indicating high exposure as it is more prone to this practice than the national average (0.094). This disparity signals a vulnerability in the selection of dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.782, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, although it shows an incipient vulnerability by registering a slightly higher rate than the national average of -0.952. While the risk is not immediate, this subtle signal warrants review. In medical sciences, extensive author lists can be legitimate due to large-scale collaborations. However, this slight elevation is a reminder to continually distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential creep of 'honorary' or political authorship practices, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.014, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure to this issue, as it is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous. This disparity invites reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could challenge its long-term research autonomy and reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.143 places it at a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.247). This indicates that the university shows greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 3.176, the institution demonstrates a high exposure to this medium-risk indicator, far exceeding the national average of 1.432. This excessive dependence on its own journals raises significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice warns of academic endogamy, where scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review. This not only limits global visibility but may also indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows exemplary performance with a Z-score of -0.741, corresponding to a very low risk level. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than in the low-risk national context (-0.390). This result indicates a strong institutional commitment to publishing substantive and coherent research. The near-total absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' confirms that the university prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.