Semnan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Semnan University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and authorship practices, but contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in post-publication quality control. With an overall integrity score of 0.129, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership, as evidenced by a very low dependency on external collaborators for impact. This is complemented by exemplary low rates of multiple affiliations and hyper-authorship, indicating robust and transparent collaborative policies. However, these strengths are overshadowed by a significant alert in the rate of retracted output and medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. These challenges directly threaten the university's pursuit of excellence, a mission reflected in its strong national positioning in key thematic areas. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, Semnan University holds top-tier national rankings in fields such as Arts and Humanities (9th), Psychology (9th), and Mathematics (10th). To safeguard and enhance this academic prestige, it is imperative to address the identified integrity risks, ensuring that the university's valuable scientific contributions are built upon a foundation of verifiable quality and global trust. A strategic focus on reinforcing pre-publication review mechanisms and promoting responsible dissemination channels will be crucial for aligning its operational practices with its academic ambitions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

Semnan University demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.285, which is even more favorable than the national average of -0.615. This result indicates a high degree of consistency and clarity in how institutional affiliations are managed. The absence of risk signals, in alignment with the national standard, suggests that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and well-defined. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate confirms that there are no indicators of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a culture of straightforward academic accounting.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university shows a Z-score of 1.075 in this indicator, a figure that places it at a significant risk level and notably above the country's medium-risk average of 0.777. This discrepancy suggests that the institution is amplifying vulnerabilities that may be present in the national scientific system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is not merely about isolated errors; it points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 1.017, the university exhibits a medium-risk level for institutional self-citation, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk profile (-0.262). This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. While a certain degree of self-citation reflects the natural progression of research lines, this elevated rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation. It warns of the risk of creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of its academic impact rather than recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score for publishing in discontinued journals is 0.405, which, while categorized as a medium risk, reveals a higher exposure compared to the national average of 0.094. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university is more prone to showing these alert signals. This constitutes 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 damage and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid investing resources in 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays a Z-score of -1.271, indicating a very low risk that is well below the national low-risk average of -0.952. This demonstrates low-profile consistency and an alignment with national standards for responsible authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' where extensive author lists are not the norm, a low score like this is a positive sign. It suggests that the university effectively avoids author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions and steering clear of practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

Semnan University has an outstanding Z-score of -1.195 in this indicator, placing it at a very low risk, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.445. This demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of impact dependency observed elsewhere in the country. A negative gap signifies that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and self-sufficient. This is a key indicator of sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.802 reflects a low-risk profile that is even more prudent than the national average of -0.247. This suggests that the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's controlled rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.176, the university operates at a medium-risk level, but this figure is significantly lower than the country's average of 1.432. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be much more common at the national level. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's more restrained use of its own journals suggests a commitment to seeking external peer review, thereby mitigating the risk of academic endogamy and ensuring its research undergoes standard competitive validation for greater global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score for redundant output is -0.212, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.390. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Citing previous work is essential, but significant bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to artificially inflate productivity. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that monitoring is needed to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.