Islamic Azad University, Yazd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Yazd, demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional strength juxtaposed with critical vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.837, the institution shows robust performance in key areas such as a very low rate of institutional self-citation, minimal hyperprolific authorship, and a commendable avoidance of publishing in its own journals, all of which point to a culture of external validation and individual accountability. However, these strengths are critically undermined by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and redundant publications (salami slicing), alongside medium-level concerns regarding publications in discontinued journals and a dependency on external partners for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has a notable position in Chemistry. The identified integrity risks, particularly those concerning retractions and publication fragmentation, directly challenge any institutional mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility, as they erode the trustworthiness of the scientific record. To secure its reputation and build upon its strengths, the university should prioritize a targeted intervention to address these specific high-risk areas, transforming them into pillars of a renewed commitment to rigorous and transparent research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution displays a prudent profile in its affiliation practices, with a Z-score of -0.771, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.615. This indicates that the university's management of researcher affiliations is well-aligned with, and even exceeds, national norms. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this controlled rate suggests the institution effectively avoids practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output (2.559) is significantly higher than the national average (0.777), indicating that it not only reflects but also amplifies a vulnerability present in the national scientific system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high Z-score alerts to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a very low rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.916), which is well below the already low national average (Z-score: -0.262). This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy practice of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, this institution's minimal rate confirms its work is being scrutinized and built upon by the broader global community, successfully avoiding the scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive internal validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.339, the institution shows a higher exposure to publishing in discontinued journals compared to the national average of 0.094, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This suggests the institution is more prone than its national peers to selecting dissemination channels that may not meet long-term quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This pattern indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.953) is in almost perfect alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.952), reflecting a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. This indicates that the university's authorship patterns are consistent with national practices and do not suggest widespread issues of author list inflation or honorary authorship outside of disciplines where large collaborations are standard. The data points to a balanced and conventional approach to assigning authorship credit.

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

The institution exhibits a high exposure to impact dependency, with a Z-score of 1.480, significantly surpassing the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.247. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard that already shows low activity in this area, reinforcing the institution's strong position. This result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution, suggesting that the university effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risks associated with publishing in its own journals. Its Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This shows the university does not replicate a dynamic observed elsewhere in the country, instead opting for external validation channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and enhances its global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

A severe discrepancy is observed in the rate of redundant output, where the institution's Z-score (5.329) is exceptionally high compared to the low-risk national average (-0.390). This atypical activity is a critical anomaly that requires a deep integrity assessment. The data strongly suggests a pattern of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent review of publication and authorship policies is recommended.