| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.847 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
8.645 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.194 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.113 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.959 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.642 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.187 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.900 | -0.390 |
Islamic Azad University, Rasht, presents a profile of notable strengths and critical vulnerabilities, reflected in an overall risk score of 2.510. The institution demonstrates exemplary governance in its publication strategies, with very low risk in publishing in institutional journals and a resilient stance against using discontinued journals, outperforming national trends. However, these strengths are overshadowed by a significant alert in the rate of retracted output, a critical issue that requires immediate attention. This is complemented by medium-risk indicators related to potential research dependency and data fragmentation. These integrity challenges stand in contrast to the university's strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in fields such as Veterinary, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Business, Management and Accounting, and Energy. The institution's mission, centered on "distinguished excellence" and "professional ethics," is directly challenged by the high rate of retractions, which undermines the credibility of its research. To fully realize its mission and leverage its academic strengths, the university must prioritize a comprehensive review of its pre-publication quality control and research supervision mechanisms, transforming this critical challenge into an opportunity for reinforcing its commitment to scientific integrity.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.847 compared to the national average of -0.615, the university exhibits a prudent approach to author affiliations, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's lower-than-average rate suggests a well-controlled environment that effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby aligning with transparent and ethical academic practices.
The institutional Z-score of 8.645 is critically higher than the national average of 0.777, indicating that the university significantly amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national research system. This score constitutes an urgent red flag. While some retractions result from the honest correction of errors, a rate this far above the average points to a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control. This situation suggests a severe vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation and academic credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.194, when compared to the country's -0.262, reveals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before escalating. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, the university's rate is slightly higher than the national benchmark. This could be an early indicator of emerging scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued monitoring is advised to prevent the risk of endogamous impact inflation and to ensure the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.113, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.094. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic national risk of publishing in discontinued journals. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this institution maintains a low-risk profile, indicating a robust process for selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects the university from severe reputational risks and reflects a high level of information literacy among its researchers, who successfully avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality media.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.959, which is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national context of -0.952. The risk level is as expected for its size and disciplinary focus, indicating that its collaborative practices are in line with its peers. There are no signals of widespread author list inflation or a dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' or political authorship practices, suggesting that its large-scale collaborations are managed appropriately.
With a Z-score of 1.642, significantly above the national average of 0.445, the institution shows high exposure to risks associated with research dependency. The wide positive gap—where overall impact is much higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. This high value suggests that a considerable portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The data reveals an incipient vulnerability regarding hyperprolific authors, with an institutional Z-score of -0.187 compared to the national score of -0.247. Although the overall risk is low, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national benchmark, warranting review before it escalates. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation serves as a reminder to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation, to safeguard the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution displays a commendable preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268, starkly contrasting with the national medium-risk average of 1.432. This indicates that the university does not replicate the national trend of publishing in its own journals. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house publications, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to external validation ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which is crucial for enhancing global visibility and achieving standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.900 against the country's -0.390, indicating a greater sensitivity to the risk of redundant publications. This medium-risk score suggests that practices of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' may be more common than in its peer environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate a strategy to artificially inflate productivity by dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units. This practice distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
