| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.165 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.611 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.247 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.541 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.198 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.390 |
Zabol University of Medical Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.468. This strong performance is anchored in exceptional control over core research practices, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals—often outperforming national benchmarks. These strengths suggest a culture committed to quality and external validation. However, two key vulnerabilities require strategic attention: a medium-risk rate of publication in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. These challenges contrast with the institution's notable thematic strengths, particularly in Chemistry, where it ranks among the top 3 in Iran according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, complemented by strong national positions in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Medicine, and Biochemistry. While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, the institution's demonstrated integrity aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. Addressing the identified weaknesses is crucial, as reliance on external leadership for impact and association with low-quality journals could undermine its long-term reputational goals and the sustainability of its research enterprise. By focusing on developing internal research leadership and enhancing due diligence in publication strategies, the university can fully leverage its solid integrity foundation to become a benchmark for sustainable and high-impact science.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.165, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s very low rate indicates a clear and transparent affiliation policy. This performance suggests that the institution effectively avoids strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that institutional credit is attributed accurately and reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic partnership.
The institution's Z-score is -0.418, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.777. This result signifies a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in quality control, but this institution’s very low score indicates the opposite: its pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor appear to be highly effective. This performance is a testament to a strong integrity culture that acts as a bulwark against the vulnerabilities present in the wider national environment, protecting its scientific record and reputation.
The institution shows an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.611, far below the national average of -0.262. This indicates a commendable alignment with best practices for external validation, surpassing the already low-risk national standard. A certain level of self-citation is normal, but the university’s minimal rate demonstrates that its research is not confined to an 'echo chamber' and does not rely on internal dynamics to build its impact. This strong outward-looking focus suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely earned through recognition by the global scientific community, avoiding any risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution has a Z-score of 0.247, while the national average is 0.094. This indicates a high exposure to risk, as the center is more prone to this issue than its national peers, both of which operate in a medium-risk context. Publishing in journals that cease operation often points to a failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This elevated rate is a critical alert, suggesting that a portion of the university's scientific output is channeled through media lacking stable international quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality publishing.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.541, compared to the national average of -0.952. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, the institution's rate is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This subtle signal warrants a review to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this slight elevation suggests a need to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and any potential for 'honorary' authorship, thereby preventing the dilution of individual responsibility before it escalates.
The institution registers a Z-score of 1.198, substantially higher than the national average of 0.445. This result reveals a high exposure to sustainability risks, as the institution is more prone than its national counterparts to a dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, suggests that its scientific prestige is largely exogenous and not yet structural. This finding invites critical reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could hinder its long-term autonomy and growth.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.247. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile that is even stronger than the national standard. The complete absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful contribution—is a positive indicator. It suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, and a research culture that does not incentivize problematic practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, a stark contrast to the national average of 1.432, which sits in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and confirms that it does not use internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without proper scrutiny.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.186, well below the national average of -0.390. This reflects a low-profile consistency, with the absence of risk signals being more pronounced at the institutional level than in the country as a whole. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to artificially inflate publication counts. This university's very low score suggests its researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over sheer volume. This approach strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a commitment to producing meaningful new knowledge rather than overburdening the review system with redundant output.
