Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.135 indicating performance that is slightly above the expected baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in its management of authorship, citation patterns, and intellectual leadership, where it actively avoids vulnerabilities prevalent at the national level. These areas of strong governance are a testament to effective internal policies. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk alerts concerning the Rate of Retracted Output and, most notably, a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Engineering. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, any mission centered on academic excellence and societal contribution is inherently challenged by integrity risks. Publishing in low-quality journals and managing a notable rate of retractions can undermine the credibility and long-term impact of its strongest research fields. The institution is therefore advised to leverage its clear strengths in internal governance to develop targeted interventions, focusing on enhancing pre-publication quality control and training researchers in the strategic selection of high-integrity publication venues. This will ensure its operational integrity fully aligns with its academic ambitions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.243, a very low-risk signal that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.615. This demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards, where the absence of risk signals is the norm. This low rate indicates that the institution's affiliations are highly likely to be the result of legitimate researcher mobility and genuine partnerships, rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping." The data suggests a transparent and clear approach to declaring institutional contributions, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.690, the institution is in the medium-risk category, performing slightly better than the national average of 0.777. This suggests a degree of differentiated management, where the university is moderating a risk that appears to be a common challenge across the country. While some retractions can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors, a Z-score at this level suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may not be consistently effective. This rate, though below the national average, still alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous oversight may require qualitative verification by management to prevent future incidents.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.751 is firmly in the low-risk category and notably more rigorous than the national average of -0.262. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater discipline than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining this low rate, the institution successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific "echo chambers" or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This demonstrates that the institution's academic influence is validated by external scrutiny from the global community, not just by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.536, a medium-risk signal that indicates high exposure when compared to the national average of 0.094. This disparity reveals that the university is significantly more prone to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a concerning portion of the university's research is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.281, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of hyper-authorship, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.952. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy and transparent approach to authorship attribution. As this pattern is observed outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are common, the very low score strongly suggests that the institution effectively avoids author list inflation. This fosters individual accountability and distinguishes its collaborative work from questionable practices like "honorary" or political authorship, reinforcing the credibility of its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.535 represents a very low-risk profile, marking a significant and positive case of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country score is 0.445 (medium risk). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. In contrast, this institution's very low score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous. It demonstrates strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, with the impact of its self-led research being robust and not reliant on collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.980 places it in the very low-risk category, a more secure position than the national average of -0.247. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's research environment fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low score suggests the institution is effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk, demonstrating a clear case of preventive isolation from the national context, which shows a medium-risk score of 1.432. This indicates the institution does not replicate a common risk dynamic in its environment. By not depending excessively on its in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" for publication and enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution has a Z-score of -0.443, a low-risk value that indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.390. This suggests the institution manages its publication practices with more rigor than the national standard. While citing previous work is essential, this low score indicates that the university effectively discourages data fragmentation or "salami slicing." The data suggests a focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.