Yasuj University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yasuj University of Medical Sciences presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside critical areas requiring strategic intervention, reflected in an overall score of 0.364. The institution demonstrates exemplary governance in key areas, with very low risk signals for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, Redundant Output, and publication in its own journals. These strengths suggest a solid foundation of internal quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, most notably a high rate of retracted publications and elevated exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a dependency on external collaboration for impact. These risks, if left unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of the university's recognized thematic strengths. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a strong national position in Chemistry (ranked 13th in Iran), complemented by solid performance in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is directly challenged by integrity risks like high retraction rates, which contradict the principles of reliable and rigorous science. To secure its scientific reputation and build upon its thematic leadership, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its pre-publication quality assurance mechanisms and enhancing the strategic autonomy of its research lines.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.633 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.615, indicating that its risk level is as expected for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's patterns of collaboration and researcher mobility are consistent with national norms. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current low-risk level indicates that these practices at Yasuj University of Medical Sciences are within a standard and legitimate operational range, reflecting organic partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.953, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.777, amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. This is a critical finding. Retractions can sometimes signal responsible error correction, but a rate that surpasses an already medium-risk national context suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This elevated score alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -1.561, indicating a very low risk, which is notably better than the national low-risk average of -0.262. This absence of risk signals is a clear strength, showing that the university's research is validated externally rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining such a low rate, the institution effectively avoids any suspicion of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is a result of genuine recognition by the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.618 indicates a high exposure to this risk, substantially exceeding the national average of 0.094, even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in channels that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in dissemination. It indicates that a significant portion of its research is channeled through media of questionable quality, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.228, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.952, pointing to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Although extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, this signal suggests a need to monitor authorship practices across all disciplines to ensure they reflect genuine, massive collaboration rather than diluting individual accountability through 'honorary' or political attributions. Proactive monitoring can prevent this trend from escalating and ensure transparency in research contributions.

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

With a Z-score of 2.688, the institution displays a significantly wider impact gap than the national average of 0.445, indicating a high exposure to dependency risk. This suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, its prestige may be heavily reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as its reputation appears more exogenous than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in external partnerships, highlighting a need to foster and promote its own research leaders.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, a positive indicator that stands out against the low-risk national average of -0.247. This demonstrates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume of publications. By effectively avoiding extreme individual publication rates, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or authorship assigned without meaningful contribution. This result suggests a commendable balance between productivity and the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low reliance on its own journals, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This represents a preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. By not depending on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent peer review. This practice strengthens the credibility of its scientific output and ensures its work is validated through competitive, global channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low incidence of redundant publications, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.390. This strong result indicates a commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate publication counts. This reinforces the institution's focus on generating substantial new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.