Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch, presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.029 indicating a balance between significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates robust governance in multiple domains, showing very low risk in the rates of Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, it displays notable resilience by maintaining a lower rate of retracted publications than the national average. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by three key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk tendency to publish in discontinued journals, a medium-risk gap suggesting a dependency on external partners for research impact, and most critically, a significant-risk rate of redundant output ('salami slicing'). The institution's academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Computer Science, Energy, and Medicine, provide a solid foundation for growth. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, the identified critical risk of redundant output directly undermines any pursuit of research excellence and social responsibility by compromising the integrity of the scientific record. To secure its reputation and build sustainable research capacity, the university is advised to leverage its areas of strong governance to implement targeted interventions focusing on publication ethics, strategic journal selection, and fostering independent intellectual leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates a very low rate of multiple affiliations with a Z-score of -1.047, a value that is not only minimal but also sits comfortably below the low-risk national average of -0.615. This alignment indicates that the university's collaborative and affiliation practices are consistent with the national standard, showing no signals of risk. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The current low-profile suggests that the institution's collaborative framework is transparent and not being used for artificial credit inflation, reflecting sound administrative governance.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution maintains a low rate of retracted publications, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a high rate can indicate that quality control mechanisms are failing. The institution’s ability to keep this indicator low suggests that its pre-publication review processes are more robust than the national standard, protecting its scientific record and reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.530 for institutional self-citation, positioning it well below the national average of -0.262. This result demonstrates a healthy pattern of external engagement and validation, consistent with national norms but executed with greater rigor. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This institution’s very low score indicates that its research is being actively recognized and built upon by the global scientific community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirming that its academic influence is driven by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.117 for output in discontinued journals indicates a medium level of risk. Although this risk level is the same as the country's, the institution's score is significantly higher than the national average of 0.094, suggesting a high exposure to this particular vulnerability. This pattern indicates that the center is more prone than its national peers to channel its research through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.208, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is very low, aligning well with the low-risk national profile (Z-score: -0.952). This consistency indicates that authorship practices at the institution are in line with national standards and do not raise concerns. In specific "Big Science" fields, extensive author lists are legitimate; however, outside these contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's low score suggests that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable honorary authorship practices, thereby maintaining transparency in its crediting system.

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

The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 1.442 in this indicator, a figure that reveals a higher exposure to impact dependency compared to the national average of 0.445. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -1.413, a very low value that is consistent with the low-risk national landscape (Z-score: -0.247). This indicates an absence of risk signals in this area and aligns with expected national productivity patterns. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score is a positive sign, suggesting a healthy balance between quantity and quality and a low probability of practices like coercive authorship or assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a negligible rate of publication in its own journals, a clear instance of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 1.432). This demonstrates strong governance, as the center does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the institution ensures its research faces external validation, which enhances its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 3.372 for redundant output represents a significant risk and a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.390. This atypical level of risk activity is an absolute outlier and requires a deep integrity assessment. The high value is a critical alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge. An urgent audit of publication practices and authorship guidelines is essential to address this vulnerability and safeguard the institution's scientific integrity.