Islamic Azad University, Damghan Branch

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Islamic Azad University, Damghan Branch, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.510 that reflects strong governance and a performance that generally surpasses national benchmarks. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low risk of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and dependency on institutional journals, indicating effective quality control and an independent research culture. These practices successfully insulate the university from several risk dynamics prevalent in the national context. The main vulnerability identified is a medium-risk level in redundant publications (salami slicing), which deviates from the national norm and warrants a review of publication strategies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are most prominent in the fields of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. This strong integrity profile largely aligns with the institutional mission to "enhance the quality of academic life" and ensure the "production and dissemination of science." However, the identified risk of redundant output could challenge the commitment to high-quality contributions. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is encouraged to reinforce its publication guidelines, ensuring that its impressive research output continues to prioritize substantive impact over volume.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.394, a low-risk value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.615. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the center shows early signals of risk activity that are less common in its national context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation warrants observation. It is a signal to review affiliation practices to ensure they consistently reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, thereby preventing this vulnerability from escalating.

Rate of Retracted Output

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.777). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk patterns present in its environment, maintaining a distinct and superior standard of quality control. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication review, but this institution's very low score points to the opposite: a robust culture of integrity and methodological rigor. This performance signifies that its supervision and validation mechanisms are effective, successfully preventing the types of recurring malpractice or unintentional errors that are more common nationally.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a prudent profile in its self-citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.652, which is notably lower and healthier than the national average of -0.262. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, avoiding the potential for scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by keeping this rate significantly below its peers, the institution demonstrates a commitment to external validation and avoids creating 'echo chambers,' ensuring its academic influence is built on broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.139 in contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.094. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks related to publication venues that are prevalent nationally. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution’s low score indicates that its researchers are successfully navigating away from media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its reputation and avoiding the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a very low Z-score of -1.259, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, as its absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.952). This indicates a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high rate elsewhere can signal author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. The institution's very low score suggests that its authorship practices are well-governed and appropriate for its disciplinary focus, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship.

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

The institution exhibits a state of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -1.661, a very low-risk value that starkly contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.445. This result shows the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, indicating strong internal capacity. A wide positive gap suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. This institution's negative score, however, signals the opposite: its scientific impact is structurally sound and driven by research where it exercises leadership. This demonstrates a sustainable model of excellence built on genuine internal capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.247) and demonstrating low-profile consistency. This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard, indicating a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The institution's very low score suggests that such dynamics are not present, and its researchers' productivity levels are well within the bounds of credible scientific practice, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates in a state of preventive isolation, as its very low-risk profile is a clear departure from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score: 1.432). This indicates the center does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The institution's minimal reliance on such channels demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.759, while the country average remains in the low-risk category at -0.390. This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often points to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated score suggests a need to review publication strategies to ensure that the emphasis is placed on generating significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, a practice which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system.