Qom University of Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Qom University of Technology presents a dichotomous integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.494 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding strength in indicators related to authorship practices and intellectual leadership, suggesting a robust internal culture of accountability and a high degree of scientific autonomy. However, this is contrasted by critical weaknesses in publication strategy and post-publication quality control, most notably a significant rate of retracted output. Thematically, the university's strengths are evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly within Iran, where it holds competitive positions in Computer Science (30th), Energy (51st), and Engineering (62nd). While these rankings support a mission of technological excellence and innovation, the identified integrity risks directly challenge this aspiration. A high rate of retractions and questionable publication choices can undermine the perceived quality and social responsibility of its research, potentially eroding the trust that is fundamental to its academic mission. The university is encouraged to leverage its strong governance framework to implement targeted quality assurance mechanisms, thereby ensuring its scientific output is as robust and reliable as its collaborative and authorship standards.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.280, a value indicating exceptionally low risk, particularly when compared to the national average of -0.615. This result demonstrates a commendable level of clarity and transparency in how institutional affiliations are declared. The absence of risk signals, even when measured against a country standard that is already low, suggests that the university's policies effectively prevent practices like “affiliation shopping” or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This low-profile consistency reinforces a culture of straightforward academic representation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.315, the institution displays a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.777. This finding suggests the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system, pointing to a critical issue in its internal quality control mechanisms. A rate this far above the norm is a serious alert that pre-publication review processes may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this suggests a potential 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 to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.630 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.262. This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While some self-citation reflects the natural progression of research, this elevated rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' dynamic. It serves as a warning about the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal validation rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.683 is classified as medium risk, a level consistent with the national average of 0.094, which is also in the medium-risk tier. However, the university's score is notably higher, indicating that it has a greater exposure to this particular risk compared to the national baseline. This pattern suggests that while publishing in questionable venues is a shared vulnerability in the country, the university is more prone to it. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and indicating an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid channeling resources into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.363, the institution demonstrates a very low risk, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.952. This alignment with, and improvement upon, the national standard indicates robust and transparent authorship practices. The data suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This strong performance reflects a culture where individual accountability is maintained, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.243, a very low-risk signal that marks a stark and positive contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.445. This result signifies a commendable preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risk dynamics of impact dependency observed elsewhere in the country. A low score in this indicator is a powerful sign of scientific sustainability and structural strength. It suggests that the institution's prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the contributions of external partners in collaborative projects.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, significantly below the country's low-risk average of -0.247. This excellent result shows a consistent and healthy approach to academic productivity. The absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors suggests that the university fosters an environment where the focus is on the quality and integrity of the scientific record, not merely on maximizing publication counts. This indicates a low probability of practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, reinforcing a sound balance between productivity and scientific rigor.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk, effectively disconnecting from the national trend, where the average is a medium-risk score of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review over internal publication channels. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed nationally, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive processes rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 1.169 places it in the medium-risk category, a notable deviation from the national average of -0.390, which falls into the low-risk tier. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to pressures that can lead to data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator is an alert for 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.