Tarbiat Modares University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Tarbiat Modares University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.131 indicating performance that is commendably safer than the global baseline. The institution exhibits significant strengths in governance and research ethics, reflected by very low-risk indicators in areas such as Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These results point to a culture that prioritizes transparency and substantive contribution over metric inflation. The primary areas requiring strategic attention are the medium-risk levels observed in Retracted Output and Output in Institutional Journals. This operational profile supports the university's strong academic standing, evidenced by its top-tier national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. This research excellence directly aligns with the institutional mission to provide "an environment for world class research." However, the identified vulnerabilities could challenge this ambition; a reliance on internal journals may create perceptions of academic endogamy, while a notable retraction rate can raise questions about pre-publication quality control. To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its peer-review processes and promoting publication in diverse, high-impact external venues, thereby ensuring its world-class research is built upon a foundation of unquestionable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.926, positioning it in a lower risk category than the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards, showing an even more conservative profile. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university's affiliations are managed with high transparency. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the institution's very low rate indicates it is not exposed to risks of strategic "affiliation shopping" or artificial inflation of institutional credit, reflecting a clear and well-governed collaboration policy.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.220, the institution's rate of retractions is at a medium-risk level, yet it is significantly lower than the national average of 0.777. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Although any retraction rate warrants attention, this comparison indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms, while not infallible, are more effective than those of its national peers. The current level still serves as an alert that pre-publication supervision could be enhanced to prevent systemic failures and protect the institution's integrity culture from recurring malpractice or methodological weaknesses.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.395, a low-risk value that is notably better than the national average of -0.262. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates a healthy reliance on external validation and minimizes the risk of creating scientific "echo chambers." This suggests that the university's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.228 in this indicator, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.094. This gap highlights a strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This performance indicates that the university's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication channels, effectively avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. Such vigilance is crucial for protecting the institution from severe reputational harm and demonstrates a high degree of information literacy that prevents the misallocation of resources to predatory outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.125, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a rate even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.952. This consistency with a low-risk environment points to robust and transparent authorship practices. The data suggests that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" collaborations, the university is not prone to author list inflation. This serves as a positive signal that individual accountability is maintained and that "honorary" or political authorship practices are not a feature of the institution's research culture.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.036, a low-risk value that signifies a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.445, demonstrating exceptional institutional resilience. While it is common for institutions to depend on external partners for impact, this result shows that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from its own intellectual leadership. This indicates that its excellence metrics are a direct result of strong internal capacity, not merely a reflection of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.085 is in the very low-risk category, significantly below the national average of -0.247. This absence of risk signals, which is even more pronounced than in the already low-risk national context, is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests that the university fosters a culture where the quality of scientific contribution is valued over sheer volume. The data provides confidence that risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, are not a concern, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.545 places it in the medium-risk category, slightly above the national average of 1.432. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to relying on its own publication channels than its peers. While in-house journals can be valuable, this level of dependence raises potential conflicts of interest and warns of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review. This practice could limit the global visibility of its output and may suggest the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.545, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of redundant publications, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.390. This lack of risk signals, which surpasses the national standard, points to a commendable focus on producing substantive and coherent research. The data suggests that the practice of "salami slicing"—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—is not prevalent. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than fragmented data strengthens the scientific record and reflects a responsible use of the academic review system.