Islamic Azad University, Mashhad

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, demonstrates a generally positive profile in scientific integrity, reflected in an overall score of 0.358. This performance is anchored by significant strengths, including very low-risk indicators for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and a commendable Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, which is notably better than the national trend. However, this solid foundation is compromised by critical vulnerabilities. The institution faces a significant risk in its Rate of Retracted Output, which is the most urgent concern, alongside medium-risk exposure in its Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a dependency on external partners for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Energy; Mathematics; and Computer Science. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the high rate of retractions directly conflicts with the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. This integrity gap threatens to undermine the credibility of its research and the reputation of its leading departments. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its governance strengths to implement targeted interventions, focusing on enhancing pre-publication quality control and reinforcing guidelines for selecting reputable publication venues, thereby safeguarding its academic mission and long-term reputation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.103, a very low-risk value that is well below the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard of controlled collaborative practices. This score indicates that the university's affiliations are managed effectively. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's very low rate confirms that its collaborative patterns are organic and not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.779, a significant-risk value that is substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.777. This finding suggests a pattern of risk accentuation, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities already present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the global average is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high Z-score points to a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.662, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is more rigorous than the national average of -0.262. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater control than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by keeping this rate notably low, the institution avoids any suggestion of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a commitment to external validation and ensures its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution has a Z-score of 0.380, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure compared to the national average of 0.094. This suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may 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's Z-score for this indicator is -0.959, which is almost identical to the national average of -0.952. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level associated with hyper-authorship is as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that the institution's large-scale collaborations are appropriate and do not show signs of author list inflation. This alignment with national norms indicates that authorship practices are transparent and individual accountability is not being diluted by 'honorary' or political attributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.601 is a medium-risk value, indicating a high exposure to this issue, especially when compared to the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This value invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. Closing this gap is crucial for building a robust and autonomous research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.032, the institution registers a very low-risk level, significantly below the national low-risk average of -0.247. This result demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. The data confirms that the university does not have authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, free from risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score is -0.268, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By not over-relying on its in-house journals, the university mitigates conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens its global visibility and competitive validation, setting a positive example of good governance.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.205 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.390, though both fall within the low-risk category. This slight difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While citing previous work is normal, this score indicates a minor but detectable tendency toward bibliographic overlap between publications. It serves as a pre-alert to monitor for practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity, ensuring that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than volume.