Islamic Azad University, Tabriz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a notable contrast between areas of exceptional control and specific, significant vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.088, the institution demonstrates robust governance in authorial practices and institutional publishing, evidenced by very low-risk scores in self-citation, hyper-authorship, hyperprolificacy, and output in its own journals. These strengths are foundational to building a culture of integrity. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by significant concerns regarding the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-risk signals in publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Computer Science. While specific mission information was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to retractions and questionable publication venues—directly threaten any institutional commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. To secure its reputation and the impact of its key research areas, the university is advised to leverage its strengths in authorial integrity to implement rigorous quality control and due diligence protocols in its publication and dissemination strategies.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.537, slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This proximity to the national baseline suggests a normal level of collaborative activity, but the minor increase points to an incipient vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend warrants monitoring. It serves as a reminder to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive contributions, thereby preventing any potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit before it escalates into a more significant issue.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.943, the institution significantly exceeds the national average of 0.777, indicating an accentuation of a risk already present in the national system. This is a critical alert. Retractions can sometimes result from honest error correction, but a rate this high suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be systemically failing. This score points to a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, potentially indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. It is imperative for the management to conduct an immediate qualitative verification to diagnose the root causes and protect the university's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -0.898, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.262. This result signals a healthy, low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this very low score confirms that the university is effectively avoiding the creation of scientific "echo chambers." It indicates that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, ensuring its impact is based on external recognition rather than endogamous or self-referential dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.658 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.094, despite both falling within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone than its national peers to publishing in problematic venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and indicating an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid "predatory" practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.224, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk in this area, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.952. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong alignment with best practices, indicating that authorship is well-managed. In fields outside of "Big Science," extensive author lists can signal inflation or a dilution of accountability. This institution's excellent score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and reflect genuine contributions, effectively avoiding the risks of "honorary" or political authorship and reinforcing individual accountability.

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

The institution registers a Z-score of -0.198, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk average of 0.445. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. This university's controlled, slightly negative score indicates a healthy balance, suggesting that its scientific excellence is largely the result of its own internal capacity and that it exercises strong intellectual leadership within its collaborations, ensuring a sustainable and structural impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.247. This result signifies a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that is fully aligned with national standards of integrity. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the plausibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low score indicates that the university fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.432. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids replicating problematic risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be useful, over-reliance on them creates conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy. This institution's low score demonstrates that its researchers are publishing in external, competitive venues, ensuring their work undergoes independent peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that the university is not using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate productivity without standard validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.225, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.390. This suggests the center is more sensitive to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its national peers. Citing previous work is normal, but significant bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate "salami slicing"—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate publication counts. This medium-risk score serves as a warning that such practices may be occurring, potentially distorting the scientific evidence base and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.