Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch, presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.424 reflecting significant strengths in research autonomy alongside critical vulnerabilities in publication practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas that signal strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, particularly its low dependency on external collaborators for impact and its minimal use of institutional journals, which fosters external validation. These strengths are foundational. However, they are counterbalanced by serious risks, most notably a high rate of retracted publications and a concerning tendency to publish in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly threaten the credibility of its research output and could undermine its strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Veterinary, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. As the institutional mission is centered on achieving excellence and contributing responsibly to society, addressing these integrity gaps is not merely a compliance issue but a strategic imperative to ensure its scientific contributions are both valid and valuable. By leveraging its robust internal governance to implement targeted quality assurance and training, the university can effectively mitigate these risks and align its practices with its ambitions for academic leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.511 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.615, indicating an incipient vulnerability. Although both the university and the country operate within a low-risk context for this indicator, the institution shows slightly more activity that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor upward deviation suggests a trend that should be monitored to ensure it reflects genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.657, the institution's rate of retractions is significantly higher than the national average of 0.777, pointing to an accentuation of risk. This severe discrepancy suggests that the vulnerabilities present in the national system are amplified within the university. A rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This goes beyond isolated incidents of honest error correction and indicates a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting 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 exhibits a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.313 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.262. This indicates that the university has a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to self-citation than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 1.368 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.094, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This demonstrates that the university is more prone to publishing in problematic venues than its environment. This high proportion constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.104, which is even lower than the national average of -0.952. This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. By effectively controlling for author list inflation, the institution ensures that individual accountability and transparency are maintained. This result suggests a healthy distinction between necessary collaboration and the avoidance of 'honorary' or political authorship practices, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.

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

The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.683 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.445. This result is a key institutional strength. While it is common for institutions in the region to rely on external partners for impact, the university does not replicate this dynamic. The very low gap suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external leadership. This reflects a high degree of real internal capacity and confirms that its excellence metrics result from its own intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a finding that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.247). This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests that the university is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. This reinforces a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer publication volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signals a preventive isolation from a risk that is prevalent at the national level, where the average score is 1.432. This is a significant indicator of good practice. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.073, while in a low-risk range, is higher than the national average of -0.390, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the university shows early signals of data fragmentation that warrant review before they escalate. This trend could indicate isolated instances of 'salami slicing,' where studies are divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Monitoring this indicator is important to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, which can distort scientific evidence.