Qom University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Qom University of Medical Sciences presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.347 that reflects a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates an outstanding commitment to external validation and responsible authorship, evidenced by very low-risk scores in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These areas represent a solid foundation of scientific integrity. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant alerts in two key areas: an extremely high Rate of Retracted Output and a substantial Gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. Thematically, the university shows notable strength and positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Dentistry, Social Sciences, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified critical risks directly challenge the universal academic goals of excellence and sustainable knowledge creation. A high rate of retractions can erode public trust and scientific credibility, while a dependency on external leadership for impact questions the long-term autonomy and development of internal research capacity. To secure its strategic vision, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in publication ethics to develop targeted, urgent interventions aimed at mitigating its most severe risks, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its areas of thematic excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.468 in this indicator, placing it in a medium-risk category that deviates moderately from the low-risk national average of -0.615. This suggests that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to factors that drive multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate warrants a review of its affiliation policies to ensure they are not inadvertently encouraging strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that appears less common across the country.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 4.296, the institution shows a significant and alarming rate of retracted publications, a figure that dramatically amplifies the moderate-risk trend already present in the national system (0.777). This severe discrepancy suggests that the university is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is a focal point for it. A rate this far above the global average is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This points to a profound 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.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally healthy practice with a Z-score of -1.187, indicating a very low risk of insular citation patterns. This performance is notably stronger than the country's already low-risk average of -0.262, showcasing a robust commitment to external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low value confirms the absence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. It strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is built upon genuine recognition from the global community rather than being artificially oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.246 for publications in discontinued journals places it in a medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.094. However, the institution's score is notably higher, indicating that it is more exposed to this risk than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output falls within a low-risk band, which is consistent with the national context (-0.952). However, its score is slightly higher than the country's average, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not currently a problem, the institution's authorship practices may be slightly more prone to inflation than those of its national peers. This serves as a signal to proactively ensure that extensive author lists are the result of necessary massive collaboration and not a dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits a critically high Z-score of 3.866 in this indicator, signaling a significant gap between its overall impact and the impact of research led by its own staff. This score dramatically accentuates the moderate dependency trend observed at the national level (0.445). Such a wide positive gap signals a major sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could compromise its long-term scientific autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.154 indicates a very low risk related to hyperprolific authors, a performance that is significantly more robust than the low-risk national average of -0.247. This near-total absence of extreme individual publication volumes is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the university's culture effectively promotes a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding the risks of coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This reflects a clear institutional priority on the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals for publication, standing in stark, positive contrast to the medium-risk trend seen across the country (1.432). This performance indicates that the university is effectively insulated from the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution acts as both judge and party, it ensures its research bypasses academic endogamy and undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, steering clear of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.190, placing it in the low-risk category, which aligns with the national context (-0.390). However, its score is slightly higher than the national average, suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While not a pressing issue, this subtle signal indicates that practices of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—may be occurring with slightly more frequency than in peer institutions. It serves as a constructive reminder to reinforce the value of publishing significant, holistic contributions to knowledge.