Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah demonstrates a robust overall performance profile (Overall Score: -0.258), indicating a solid foundation in scientific integrity with specific, identifiable areas for strategic enhancement. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low-risk indicators for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, showcasing strong internal governance and a culture that successfully resists several systemic risks prevalent at the national level. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the Gap between total and leadership impact, and the Rate of Redundant Output. These areas of vulnerability require targeted attention. The university's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Engineering and Physics and Astronomy, provides a solid platform for this work. The identified risks, particularly publishing in low-quality journals and fragmenting research, directly challenge the institutional mission's commitment to "excellence," "quality," and "transparency." To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university is advised to focus on strengthening due diligence in publication channels and promoting research that is not only impactful but also structurally independent and holistically presented.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.315 for multiple affiliations is significantly lower than the national average of -0.615, demonstrating a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the country's already controlled environment. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data suggests it effectively avoids strategic "affiliation shopping" or other practices designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, ensuring that collaborative efforts are authentically represented.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.540, the institution shows remarkable resilience against a national trend of higher retraction rates (Country Z-score: 0.777). This performance suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Such a low rate of retractions points to robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms and a strong integrity culture, effectively preventing the kind of systemic methodological failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retracted papers.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.629 that is notably more rigorous than the national standard of -0.262. This indicates a healthy level of engagement with the global scientific community, successfully avoiding the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated primarily through internal citation. The data suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external scrutiny and recognition, rather than being inflated by endogamous dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A significant area of concern is the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals. Its Z-score of 0.831 indicates a high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.094. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals suggests that a significant amount of research is being placed in media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.761, slightly higher than the national average of -0.952, though both values remain in a low-risk range. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some fields, this signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all contributions are meaningful, thereby distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from any potential for 'honorary' authorship.

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

The institution displays a high exposure to dependency risk, with its Z-score of 1.745 indicating a very wide gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This is substantially more pronounced than the national average of 0.445. This gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners and not yet fully structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows excellent control over authorship concentration, a figure that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.247. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment. It indicates a culture that values a balance between quantity and quality, discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of individual metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university effectively insulates itself from the risks of academic endogamy that are more common at the national level. Its Z-score of -0.268 for publications in its own journals stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.432. This preventive isolation demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By prioritizing independent, external peer review, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research is validated through standard competitive scrutiny rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of 0.404, shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, which sits at a low-risk -0.390. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity than its peers to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This trend requires attention, as such practices can distort the body of scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the dissemination of significant new knowledge.