Shahroud University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shahroud University of Medical Sciences presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.196 indicating general alignment with sound scientific practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals, showcasing robust internal governance. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals and, most critically, a significant-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Environmental Science. The identified dependency on external leadership for impact (Ni_difference) directly challenges the institutional mission to "develop research, knowledge production and new technological innovation," suggesting that its prestige may be more reliant on collaboration than on endogenous capacity. To fully realize its vision of meeting the "best national and international standards," it is recommended that the university focus strategic efforts on strengthening its research autonomy and implementing stricter due diligence in publication venue selection, thereby transforming collaborative success into sustainable, self-directed excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.977 is well below the national average of -0.615, demonstrating a consistent and low-risk profile in this area. This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, indicating that the university's practices are sound. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's very low rate suggests there are no strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and transparent approach to academic collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution shows a low rate of retractions, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. A low retraction rate suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where responsible supervision is the norm.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a Z-score of -1.787, which is exceptionally low compared to the national average of -0.262. This result indicates a consistent, low-profile approach that aligns with national standards for research integrity. A certain level of self-citation is natural; however, the institution's extremely low rate confirms the absence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates that the university's work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, ensuring its academic influence is based on genuine recognition by the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.264 places it in the medium-risk category, slightly above the national average of 0.094. This suggests a higher exposure to risk factors compared to its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score of -0.028 is higher than the national average of -0.952, despite both falling within the low-risk category. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this signal suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and reflect meaningful contributions. It serves as a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship, thereby safeguarding individual accountability.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.604 in this indicator, a figure that significantly exceeds the medium-risk national average of 0.445. This result indicates a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. The high value suggests that the university's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a rate significantly lower than the national average of -0.247. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency that aligns with national standards and reflects a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area indicates the absence of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution's minimal reliance on them mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks.'

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.404 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.390, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context and size, showing neither an excess nor a deficit of this practice compared to its peers. While massive bibliographic overlap can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the university's score suggests that its practices are in line with the national standard. This alignment implies that while isolated cases may exist, there is no systemic pattern of artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units.