| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.140 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.605 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.153 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.079 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.818 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.678 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.349 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
5.726 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.905 | -0.390 |
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences demonstrates a robust overall performance profile, reflected in a global score of 0.959, yet this is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in specific areas of scientific practice. The institution exhibits a significant strength in avoiding redundant publications, indicating a healthy focus on substantive research. However, this is overshadowed by significant risks related to hyperprolific authorship and an excessive reliance on institutional journals, which suggest a systemic focus on publication volume that may compromise quality. These integrity challenges stand in stark contrast to the university's outstanding thematic leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (1st in Iran), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (2nd in Iran), and both Medicine and Dentistry (4th in Iran). This dichotomy poses a direct threat to the university's mission to "contribute in promoting the health status" through "knowledge-based development." Practices that prioritize metrics over methodological rigor undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of the very knowledge the institution aims to generate. To safeguard its reputation and ensure its research genuinely improves quality of life, it is imperative that the university addresses these integrity alerts, aligning its operational practices with its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.140, while the national average is -0.615. This indicates a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The university's higher score warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaborative contributions, rather than being used as a mechanism to artificially boost institutional metrics.
With a Z-score of 0.605, the university performs better than the national average of 0.777. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for retractions, this result points to a differentiated management approach at the university, which appears to moderate a risk that is more pronounced nationally. Retractions are complex events, but a high rate can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The university's ability to maintain a lower rate than its environment suggests its integrity culture and supervision mechanisms are comparatively more effective, though the medium-risk level still calls for continued vigilance to prevent recurring malpractice.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is -0.153, slightly higher than the national average of -0.262. While both scores fall within a low-risk range, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability. The data suggests that while the university's practices are statistically normal for its context, it shows slightly more activity in this area than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this slight elevation serves as an early signal to monitor for any trend toward scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' which could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact if left unchecked.
The institution's Z-score of 0.079 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.094. This alignment indicates that the medium-risk level observed at the university is not an isolated issue but rather reflects a systemic pattern shared across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This shared challenge suggests a widespread need for improved information literacy to avoid channeling valuable research into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby exposing institutions to severe reputational risk and wasting scientific resources on predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.818, the university's risk level is low, but slightly higher than the national average of -0.952. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, an upward trend outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's slightly higher score, though still in a low-risk category, serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and are based on necessary collaboration rather than honorary or political considerations.
The university's Z-score of 0.678 is notably higher than the national average of 0.445, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. Although both operate at a medium-risk level, the university is more prone to showing alert signals in this area. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external partners, with a risk that its excellence metrics are derived more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to bolster internal research capabilities to ensure long-term scientific sustainability and autonomy.
A Z-score of 2.349 places the institution at a significant risk level, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.247. This risk activity is highly atypical and demands a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to severe imbalances between quantity and quality. This critical alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and require urgent institutional intervention.
The university's Z-score of 5.726 is at a significant risk level and dramatically amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (1.432). This indicates an excessive dependence on in-house journals, which raises serious conflicts of interest as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice creates a high risk of academic endogamy, where scientific work may bypass rigorous, independent peer review. Such a strong signal warns that internal channels might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation, severely limiting the global visibility and credibility of the institution's research.
The institution demonstrates a clear strength with a Z-score of -0.905, indicating a very low risk that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard (-0.390). This absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national environment and points to robust internal practices. It suggests that the university effectively discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies are divided into minimal units to inflate productivity. This low-profile consistency is a positive indicator of a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication metrics.
