Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score of 0.238, which indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in multiple areas, including a very low rate of institutional self-citation, minimal hyper-authorship, and a commendable reliance on its own intellectual leadership for scientific impact. These positive signals are, however, contrasted by three critical areas of concern: a significant rate of retracted output, and medium-risk levels for redundant publications and output in discontinued journals. The institution shows notable research activity in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, as evidenced by its ranking within the SCImago Institutions Rankings. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to retractions and data fragmentation—directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and integrity. To safeguard its reputation and ensure the robustness of its scientific contributions, the university should leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted interventions aimed at mitigating these specific, high-impact vulnerabilities.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.102, which is well below the national average of -0.615. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's data shows no signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, indicating a clear and transparent approach to representing its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.789 for retracted output, a figure that critically surpasses the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This disparity suggests a dynamic of risk accentuation, where the institution appears to be amplifying systemic vulnerabilities present in the national research environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a serious indicator that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing. This finding points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, possibly stemming from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, and warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to diagnose the root causes and prevent further reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.967, which is notably better than the country's average of -0.262. This demonstrates a healthy pattern of scientific engagement, aligning with a national environment that already shows low risk in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate strongly suggests that its work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through internal "echo chambers." This indicates that the institution's academic influence is built on external recognition, not on endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.258, the institution shows a medium risk level for publishing in discontinued journals, a rate that is higher than the national average of 0.094. Although this is a shared challenge within the country, the institution exhibits a higher exposure, suggesting it is more prone to this risk than its peers. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that scientific work is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -1.276, a very low value that sits comfortably below the country's low-risk average of -0.952. This indicates a consistent and responsible approach to authorship that aligns with the national standard. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship.

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

A key institutional strength is revealed in this indicator, where the Z-score is -1.425, signifying a very low-risk profile. This stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.445, which indicates a medium-risk dependency on external partners for impact. This pattern of preventive isolation shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. The data suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution presents a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors, significantly below the national average of -0.247. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the institution's research culture does not foster the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The absence of this risk signal indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of systemic issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a figure that is substantially lower than the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest that are more prevalent at the national level. By favoring external, independent peer review over internal channels, the institution enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its commitment to objective quality standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.234 for redundant output places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average score is -0.390 (low risk). This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of "salami slicing," where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific record but also overburdens the peer-review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.