Fasa University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Fasa University of Medical Sciences demonstrates a robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.322 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research quality and leadership, reflected by very low risk levels in Retracted Output, the Gap in Leadership Impact, and Output in Institutional Journals—areas where it significantly outperforms the national context. This showcases strong internal governance. The main vulnerability is a medium-risk, high-exposure rate of publication in Discontinued Journals, which requires immediate attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are concentrated in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 20th in Iran), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (45th), and Medicine (65th). These achievements align with the mission to "upgrade educational and research level." However, the risk associated with publishing in discontinued journals directly threatens the goal of being "introduced internationally" and building a reputation at "credible international centers," as it undermines the perceived quality and reliability of its research. To fully realize its global ambitions, the university should leverage its solid integrity foundation while strategically addressing its publication channel selection policies.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.094, while the national average is -0.615. Although the risk level is low for both, the university's rate is slightly higher than the national baseline, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation suggests that the institution should monitor collaboration patterns to ensure they reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” A proactive review can help maintain the transparency and integrity of its collaborative footprint before this trend escalates.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution exhibits a very low rate of retracted publications, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation from risk dynamics prevalent in the wider environment. The data suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and pre-publication supervision are exceptionally robust, effectively preventing the systemic failures that may lead to retractions elsewhere. This exceptionally low rate is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture and high methodological rigor, which are fundamental to building and maintaining scientific credibility on the international stage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.329, which is lower and thus healthier than the national average of -0.262. This indicates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by keeping this rate below its peers, the university effectively avoids signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a commitment to external validation and engagement with the global scientific community, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.608 is notably higher than the national average of 0.094, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This disparity suggests the university is more prone to this issue than its peers, representing a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in journals that cease publication often points to engagement with media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidance for researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.952. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines. The university should review whether this trend is concentrated in specific collaborative fields or if it hints at a broader need to reinforce guidelines against 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions.

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

The institution shows exceptional strength in this area, with a Z-score of -1.754, which is significantly better than the medium-risk national average of 0.445. This result indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the dependency on external partners seen elsewhere in the country. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon real internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a powerful indicator of research sustainability and maturity, demonstrating that the university's high-impact work is driven by its own researchers, a key factor for long-term international recognition.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university demonstrates a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.678, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.247. This suggests that the institution's research environment fosters a healthier balance between quantity and quality compared to its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation. By maintaining a low rate, the university reinforces the integrity of its scientific record and promotes a culture where substantive contributions are valued over sheer publication counts.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, distinguishing it sharply from the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This reflects a successful isolation from a common national trend and a strong commitment to external validation. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's low dependence on such channels demonstrates that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.394, which is nearly identical to the national average of -0.390. This alignment indicates a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context. While the low score is positive, it is important to remain vigilant. The practice of 'salami slicing,' or dividing a study into minimal publishable units, can artificially inflate productivity metrics at the expense of scientific substance. The university's performance is standard for its environment, but continuous monitoring is advisable to ensure that the emphasis remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than on maximizing publication volume.