Karaganda Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Karaganda Medical University demonstrates a robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 1.117, indicating a performance that is generally strong but marked by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits exceptional control over most risk indicators, showing a near-total absence of signals related to hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, multiple affiliations, or dependency on external collaborators for impact. These strengths provide a solid foundation of responsible research practices. However, this positive landscape is critically undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals and a medium-risk level in institutional self-citation. The university's strong thematic positioning, particularly its top-tier national rankings in Medicine (3rd), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (5th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (7th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, is directly threatened by these integrity risks. Publishing in low-quality or predatory journals contradicts the core academic mission of achieving excellence and social responsibility, as it devalues the very research that builds its reputation. To safeguard its leadership in these key medical fields, it is imperative that the university leverages its many areas of integrity to implement targeted strategies that address its critical vulnerabilities, particularly in the selection of publication venues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.183, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.015. This result indicates a highly stable and transparent approach to academic affiliations, consistent with the low-risk profile observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate provides strong assurance against any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of clear and unambiguous academic contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national context (Z-score of 0.548). This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the wider environment. While retractions can sometimes reflect responsible error correction, the university's low rate indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are effective, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would signal.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 1.467, slightly below the national average of 1.618. This positioning suggests that while the institution operates within a national context prone to self-referencing, it exercises a degree of moderation compared to its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but the current medium-risk value warrants attention. It serves as a reminder to ensure that the institution does not develop scientific "echo chambers" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, a practice that can lead to an endogamous inflation of academic impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 7.790, a critically high value that significantly exceeds the already high national average of 2.749. This is a major red flag, indicating that the university is a leader in risk within a country already compromised in this area. This extremely high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The data suggests a systemic vulnerability where a significant portion of scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent, immediate need for comprehensive information literacy and training to prevent the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-integrity publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.128, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authorship, aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national average (Z-score of -0.649). This finding suggests a healthy and transparent culture of authorship attribution. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates can indicate inflation or honorary authorships. The university's low score indicates that its practices effectively preserve individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from questionable authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.919 signals a very low-risk profile, representing a notable disconnection from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.199). This result is a significant strength, indicating that the university does not replicate the national dynamic of relying on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can suggest that prestige is dependent and exogenous; however, this institution's profile indicates that its scientific excellence is structural and stems from real internal capacity, as the research led by its own authors is highly impactful.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, falling even below the country's already very low average of -0.980. This signifies a complete operational silence in this risk area. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship. The total absence of such signals at the university points to a well-balanced academic environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the sheer quantity of publications.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect synchrony with a secure environment. This alignment indicates that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its own journals for dissemination. This is a sign of robust academic practice, as it mitigates the conflict of interest that arises when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. By seeking external validation, the university ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the risk of academic endogamy or using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication records.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a very low risk of redundant publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country (Z-score of 0.793). This strong performance indicates that the university's research culture discourages the practice of "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By avoiding this, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and demonstrates a commitment to publishing complete, significant contributions to knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.