Jiroft University of Medical Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jiroft University of Medical Sciences demonstrates a commendable overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of -0.214 indicating a profile that is slightly more robust than the international baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and academic endogamy, suggesting strong internal governance and an alignment with global best practices. The main vulnerability identified is a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, which stands out against an otherwise solid integrity framework. This operational profile supports the institution's notable research capacity, particularly in the fields of Medicine and Social Sciences, where it holds significant national and regional rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission statement was not provided for this analysis, these findings have direct implications for any strategic vision centered on scientific excellence and social responsibility. The risk of publishing in low-quality channels directly threatens the pursuit of credible, high-impact research, potentially undermining the credibility that underpins its strong thematic performance. Overall, Jiroft University of Medical Sciences presents a profile of high scientific integrity with a clear, manageable area for improvement. By strategically addressing the identified vulnerability in publication channel selection, the institution can fully secure its research enterprise and solidify its reputation as a leader in responsible and impactful science.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.607 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.615, indicating a level of risk that is normal and expected for its context. This synchrony suggests that the institution's policies and researcher practices regarding co-affiliations mirror the national standard. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the low scores for both the university and the country suggest that this is not a widespread issue, and current practices reflect legitimate academic mobility and collaboration rather than strategic manipulation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.777. This positive result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution's internal quality controls effectively shield it from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This absence of signals suggests that the mechanisms for supervision and methodological rigor prior to publication are robust. It points to a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are caught internally, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.004, which is significantly below the already low national average of -0.262. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses even the national standard. This result strongly indicates that the institution's research is well-integrated into the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. It suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.369, which, while in the medium-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of 0.094. This suggests a high exposure to reputational risk, as the center is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a segment of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.189, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a rate that is even lower than the national average of -0.952. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. The data suggests that authorship practices at the institution are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or inflated author lists. This reinforces the integrity of individual contributions to the university's research output.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.915, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.445. This excellent result signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the dependency on external partners for impact that is more common nationally. A low score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership, not merely a byproduct of participating in collaborations led by others. This demonstrates a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainable, internally-driven research capacity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.039, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.247. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a precautionary alert to review for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, or for practices like coercive authorship, ensuring that publication metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low reliance on its own journals, a figure that stands in stark opposition to the medium-risk national average of 1.432. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a national trend toward academic endogamy. By primarily publishing in external, independent venues, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation and avoids potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific production, showing a commitment to objective, external peer review over potentially biased internal channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, well below the national average of -0.390. This finding demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the absence of risk signals is in line with the national environment but at a much safer level. The data strongly suggests that the institution's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This indicates a focus on producing substantive, coherent contributions to the scientific literature rather than prioritizing publication volume.