Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.371. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas related to authorship practices, quality control, and academic independence, with very low risk signals in multiple affiliations, retracted output, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and output in its own journals. These results indicate a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. However, this strong performance is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific strengths are most prominent in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Physics and Astronomy, Engineering, and Computer Science. While the institution's mission was not specified, these identified risks—particularly those suggesting a focus on publication volume over impact and quality—could undermine any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. To build on its solid integrity framework, the university is advised to implement targeted policies that address the specific vulnerabilities in publication strategy and citation practices, thereby ensuring its research output is not only prolific but also of the highest quality and global relevance.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.145, which is even more conservative than the country's already low-risk average of -0.615. This demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to author affiliations that aligns with national standards of good practice. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data suggests that its policies or culture effectively promote transparent and accurate representation of institutional contributions, avoiding any ambiguity related to "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.531, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals for retracted publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.777). This is a significant strength, indicating that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and successful. A high rate of retractions can alert to systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity. In this case, the university's performance suggests a strong integrity culture and responsible supervision, successfully preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions elsewhere in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.289 places it in a medium-risk category, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.262. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. While some self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, where academic influence is shaped more by internal validation rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that warrants a review of citation patterns.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.453, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure to this issue, especially when compared to the national average of 0.094. Although the risk is systemic at the national level, the university is more prone to this behavior than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score indicates that a notable portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -1.298, indicating a very low risk that is well below the country's low-risk average of -0.952. This low-profile consistency suggests that authorship practices are transparent and well-governed. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's score indicates a commendable adherence to meaningful authorship criteria, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and responsibility is clearly defined.

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

With a Z-score of -0.300, the institution shows a low-risk profile, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.445). This indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners and is instead built upon strong internal capacity. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's impact is largely derived from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This university's balanced score suggests that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities, mitigating the sustainability risk associated with an exogenous and dependent impact model.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near absence of this risk factor and a performance that is significantly more rigorous than the national low-risk average of -0.247. This result points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research production. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship or a prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity. The institution's data reflects a responsible research environment where such pressures appear to be effectively managed, ensuring the credibility of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution maintains a very low-risk Z-score of -0.154, a figure that demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend prevalent across the country (Z-score: 1.432). This is a strong indicator of a commitment to external validation and global visibility. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as it may allow research to bypass independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its scientific production is subjected to standard competitive validation, strengthening its credibility and reach within the international academic community.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.679 signals a medium level of risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.390. This discrepancy suggests the university is more susceptible than its peers to practices that artificially inflate publication counts. A high value in this indicator alerts to the possibility of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the dissemination of significant, cohesive new knowledge. This is an area that warrants internal review to ensure research is communicated with maximum impact and integrity.