Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.276 reflecting both exceptional governance in specific areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates outstanding control over authorship practices, intellectual leadership, and academic independence, with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, the impact gap with leadership, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths are foundational. However, they are offset by a significant risk in the Rate of Retracted Output, which amplifies a national vulnerability, and concerning medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, and publication in Discontinued Journals. Thematically, the university showcases strong national positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Engineering (ranked 22nd in Iran), Environmental Science (27th), and Chemistry (47th). These areas of excellence are directly threatened by integrity risks that undermine the institutional mission to "spread knowledge" and "break the boundaries of knowledge." A high rate of retractions and reliance on questionable publication channels contradict the core values of scientific rigor and sustainable development. To secure its reputation and align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its evident strengths in governance to urgently implement robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms and enhance researcher literacy in selecting high-integrity dissemination channels.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.735 is slightly below the national average of -0.615, indicating a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. This suggests that the university maintains clear and transparent affiliation policies, effectively managing its partnerships. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate demonstrates that the institution is not engaging in practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, but rather fostering genuine and well-documented collaborations that align with its research objectives.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.460, the institution shows a significant risk level that markedly accentuates the country's medium-risk average of 0.777. This severe discrepancy points to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. Retractions can sometimes result from honest error correction, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This is not an isolated issue but a pattern that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to diagnose the root causes, whether they stem from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, which could compromise the institution's scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.384, a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk profile of -0.262. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers, suggesting a tendency toward internal validation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence could be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.761 reveals a high exposure to this risk, significantly surpassing the national average of 0.094, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This disparity indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to channeling research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being placed in media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.271, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this area, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.952. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with national standards and points to a culture of responsible authorship. The data suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution effectively avoids author list inflation. This reflects strong governance that promotes transparency and ensures that authorship is granted based on meaningful contributions, thereby upholding individual accountability.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.175 represents a very low risk and a point of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country shows a medium-risk score of 0.445. This outstanding result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon real internal capacity. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics result from research in which the university exercises clear intellectual leadership, rather than depending on external partners for impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the country's low-risk score of -0.247. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals that aligns with a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By avoiding this pattern, the institution signals a focus on the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of output, mitigating risks such as 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 risk, effectively isolating itself from a national environment where this is a medium-risk issue (country score of 1.432). This performance is a strong indicator of a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not relying on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production bypasses potential academic endogamy and is subjected to independent, external peer review. This practice reinforces the credibility of its research and avoids the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.605 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk value of -0.390. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, and warrants a review of internal publication strategies.