Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Khorasgan Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a global Z-score of -0.420. This performance indicates a strong foundation in research ethics and governance, with significant strengths in authorship practices, intellectual autonomy, and the selection of publication venues. The institution excels with very low risk levels in areas such as Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and the Gap in Impact with Leadership, effectively insulating itself from higher-risk trends prevalent at the national level. These strengths are particularly relevant given the institution's notable performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in fields like Business, Management and Accounting, Dentistry, and Social Sciences. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium risk in the Rate of Retracted Output and an incipient vulnerability in Institutional Self-Citation. These signals, while moderate, could potentially undermine the core mission of ensuring learner "success" and "equality of educational opportunity," as institutional credibility is foundational to these goals. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its commitment to academic excellence and reinforce its position as a leader in responsible and impactful research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a very low risk profile in multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.136, which is well below the national average Z-score of -0.615. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk operational standard that aligns with the national context, showing no signals of problematic affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's very low rate suggests that there are no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of transparent and accurate academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted publications registers a medium risk level (Z-score: 0.183), though it demonstrates more effective management compared to the more pronounced national trend (Z-score: 0.777). This suggests that while the University is not entirely immune to the factors leading to retractions in the country, its internal mechanisms appear to moderate this risk. Retractions are complex events, and some may result from the honest correction of errors. However, a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.132, the institution's rate of self-citation is at a low risk level but shows an incipient vulnerability by being slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.262). This suggests that while the practice is not yet a significant issue, it warrants review before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. Nevertheless, this slightly elevated rate could signal the early stages of a scientific 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It serves as a preliminary warning about the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be shaped more by internal dynamics than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience in its choice of publication venues, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.043, effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level, where the average is a medium-risk Z-score of 0.094. This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and guidance for researchers are successful. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. The institution's favorable score indicates that its scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting it from severe reputational risks and avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a very low-risk profile regarding hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.383), a figure that is significantly healthier than the national low-risk average (Z-score: -0.952). This absence of risk signals is consistent with national standards but demonstrates an even more conservative approach to authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute individual accountability. The institution's excellent result suggests that its research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, promoting transparency and clear accountability.

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

A key institutional strength is its demonstrated intellectual leadership, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.364, which represents a preventive isolation from the national trend of dependency (Z-score: 0.445). This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment, where prestige is often reliant on external partners. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is exogenous. In contrast, the institution's score indicates that its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity and structural strength, not merely from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows exceptional control over hyperprolific authorship, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average (Z-score: -0.247). This lack of risk signals aligns with the national standard of low risk but showcases a more rigorous internal environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile for publishing in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268), a clear point of preventive isolation from the national environment, which shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score: 1.432). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed across the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's low score demonstrates that it avoids academic endogamy and does not rely on internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and maintains global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

In the area of redundant output, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.813), which is more favorable than the national low-risk average (Z-score: -0.390). This result reflects a consistent and responsible approach to publication that aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score suggests its researchers are focused on publishing significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence, thereby respecting the integrity of the academic record and the peer review system.