| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.288 | -0.615 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.681 | 0.777 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.728 | -0.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.000 | 0.094 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -0.952 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.126 | 0.445 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.064 | -0.247 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.432 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.390 |
Hamedan University of Technology presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.107 indicating a performance aligned with global best practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and very low risk in critical areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. Particularly noteworthy is the university's success in building sustainable impact, as shown by the very low gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its own leadership—a clear indicator of strong internal capacity that contrasts sharply with the national trend. While this foundation is solid, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium risk level in Institutional Self-Citation and Retracted Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's recognized thematic strengths lie in fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, and Energy. The identified risks, particularly the tendency towards self-citation, could challenge a mission focused on achieving global excellence and social responsibility by potentially fostering academic 'echo chambers' that limit external validation and impact. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Hamedan University of Technology can further solidify its strong integrity framework, ensuring its recognized research excellence is built upon a foundation of maximum transparency and global credibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.288, a very low-risk signal that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.615. This result demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, where affiliations are clearly defined and justified. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard, confirming that the university's collaboration patterns do not suggest any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a strong adherence to conventional and ethical co-authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.681, the institution operates at a medium risk level, a situation that warrants attention. However, this performance demonstrates differentiated management, as the university's rate is notably lower than the national average of 0.777. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly above the global average can suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing. In this context, the university appears to moderate a risk that is more pronounced at the national level, but the existing signal indicates a vulnerability in its integrity culture that requires qualitative verification to prevent recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.728, a medium risk level that represents a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average score is -0.262 (low risk). This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that can lead to scientific isolation. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal citation patterns rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.000, a low-risk value that highlights its institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.094, which falls into the medium-risk category. This strong performance indicates that the university's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effective in mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. It suggests that the institution has successfully established a filter against channeling scientific production into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its reputation and avoiding the resource waste associated with 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, consistent with the low-risk national average of -0.952. This alignment indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-governed and transparent. The data shows no signs of author list inflation, a practice that can dilute individual accountability. This result confirms that authorship is likely assigned based on meaningful contributions, distinguishing the institution's work from problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution demonstrates a significant strength with a Z-score of -1.126, a very low-risk signal that indicates preventive isolation from a challenging national trend (country average: 0.445, medium risk). This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the university's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. Unlike the national dynamic, where impact is often tied to collaborations led by others, this institution proves its excellence is structural and endogenous.
The institution's Z-score of -0.064 places it in the low-risk category, though it reveals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the lower national average of -0.247. While the overall risk is contained, this slight elevation suggests the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator, therefore, serves as a gentle alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality and to ensure that authorship is not assigned without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the national trend, where the average is 1.432 (medium risk). This is a clear sign of a commitment to global standards and external validation. By not relying on its own journals, the university avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility of its research and confirms that its output competes successfully through independent, external peer-review channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies a very low risk, a position that is even stronger than the already low-risk national average of -0.390. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a robust adherence to ethical publication standards. The data confirms an absence of practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, significant work reinforces the integrity of the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
