Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical Sciences, presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.268 indicating a slight deviation above the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining academic autonomy and rigor, particularly in its very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, suggesting a culture that values external validation and substantive research contributions. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable academic positioning, as evidenced by its high national rankings in key medical and health-related fields, including Dentistry (ranked 8th in Iran), Medicine (16th), and Psychology (21st), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted output and medium-risk levels for publishing in discontinued journals and a dependency on external leadership for research impact. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks pose a direct challenge to the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and upholding social responsibility. A high rate of retractions and reliance on low-quality journals can undermine public trust and the credibility of its excellent thematic areas. A proactive strategy focused on reinforcing pre-publication quality controls and fostering internal research leadership would be instrumental in aligning its operational practices with its clear academic strengths, ensuring long-term reputational integrity and sustainable growth.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.314, slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the center shows signals of risk activity that, while still low, are more pronounced than in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend warrants review. It is a signal to monitor whether these affiliations are consistently tied to substantive collaborations or if they are beginning to trend towards strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, a practice sometimes referred to as “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.868, the institution exhibits a significant risk level that is notably higher than the national average of 0.777, which is already at a medium-risk level. This finding indicates that the institution is not only participating in but actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.931, indicating a very low risk and positioning it well below the national average of -0.262. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining such a low rate, the institution effectively avoids any suspicion of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.803 reflects a medium risk level, but it is substantially higher than the national average of 0.094. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, indicating the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant 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 of -0.977 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.952, both at a low-risk level. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context and size. In certain 'Big Science' fields, extensive author lists are legitimate. The institution's adherence to the national norm suggests its collaborative practices are standard and do not currently raise flags for author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This indicates a healthy balance between large-scale collaboration and transparent authorship attribution.

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

With a Z-score of 1.695, the institution shows a medium-risk gap that is significantly wider than the national average of 0.445. This demonstrates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the center is more prone to depending on external partners for impact than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.524, which is lower than the national average of -0.247. This indicates that the center manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of publications.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk signal that represents a clear preventive isolation from national trends, as the country average stands at a medium-risk 1.432. The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. In-house journals can raise conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. By avoiding this channel, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and confirms it is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.644, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of redundant publications, a figure that is healthier than the national low-risk average of -0.390. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, is a clear strength. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's very low score suggests its research culture prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over artificially increasing output volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.