Islamic Azad University, Qazvin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Qazvin presents a robust and largely positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.216 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with international standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and output in institutional journals. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience by effectively mitigating national risk trends related to retracted publications and impact dependency. The primary areas requiring strategic attention are a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a notable rate of redundant output (salami slicing). Thematically, the university showcases significant national standing in Mathematics (ranked 21st in Iran), Business, Management and Accounting (36th), and Computer Science (37th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, particularly those concerning publication quality and research fragmentation, present a direct challenge to the university's mission of upholding the "highest quality standard" and "Islamic, ethical virtues." Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that its operational practices fully reflect its commitment to excellence and social responsibility. By reinforcing guidance on selecting reputable publication venues and promoting comprehensive research reporting, the university can solidify its position as a leader in both academic output and scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.907, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a clear and consistent affiliation policy that aligns with the low-risk profile observed nationally. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are transparent and not leveraged to artificially inflate institutional credit. This reflects a healthy approach to partnerships, where affiliations are a legitimate result of researcher mobility and genuine collaboration rather than strategic "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution maintains a low risk for retracted publications, showcasing effective institutional resilience in a national context where this risk is more pronounced (country Z-score: 0.777). This suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic vulnerabilities seen elsewhere in the country. This low rate indicates that pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher score would imply, and reinforcing a strong culture of integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a prudent profile regarding institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.643, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.262. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This low rate suggests that the institution's academic influence is healthily dependent on global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reflecting a strong connection to the broader scientific landscape.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals presents a medium-risk signal (Z-score: 0.640), indicating a higher exposure to this issue compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.094). Although this is a shared challenge nationally, the university appears more prone to this risk. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.322, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of hyper-authored output, a figure that is well below the already low-risk national average of -0.952. This alignment with national standards, and even an improvement upon them, indicates that authorship practices are transparent and accountable. The data suggests that author lists are not being artificially inflated with "honorary" or political attributions, and that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices that could dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.438 in its impact gap, demonstrating strong institutional resilience compared to the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.445). This favorable result indicates that the university is not overly dependent on external partners for its scientific prestige. Unlike the national pattern, where impact is often driven by collaborations led by others, this institution's excellence metrics appear to be rooted in genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, signaling a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's rate of hyperprolific authors is exceptionally low (Z-score: -1.413), positioning it well below the national average of -0.247. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy national environment and points to a well-balanced relationship between productivity and quality. The data suggests that the institution is effectively avoiding dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a clear preventive isolation from the risks associated with publishing in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a national context where this is a medium-risk issue (country Z-score: 1.432). This indicates that the university does not replicate the endogamous publication dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not being used as "fast tracks" to inflate résumés without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output, or "salami slicing," registers as a medium-risk concern (Z-score: 0.841), representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.390). This suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. This value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a tendency not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.