| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.713 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.592 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.434 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.423 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.171 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.710 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.720 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.296 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.673 | 2.965 |
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University presents a strong overall integrity profile, reflected in a high global score of 0.974. This performance is anchored in notable strengths, particularly an exemplary low rate of institutional self-citation, which demonstrates a commitment to external validation and successfully counters a significant national trend. The institution also shows effective management in avoiding discontinued journals and institutional publications, reinforcing its global outlook. These strengths are aligned with its outstanding leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings as #1 in Russia for both Medicine and Dentistry, and #3 for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. However, this pursuit of "differentiated excellence" as stated in its mission is critically challenged by a significant rate of retracted output, which suggests a systemic vulnerability in pre-publication quality control. This, combined with a high dependency on external partners for research impact, signals an urgent need to fortify internal scientific governance. To fully realize its mission, the University should leverage its robust areas of integrity to implement rigorous oversight mechanisms, ensuring that its cutting-edge research is matched by an unwavering commitment to scientific quality and reproducibility.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.713 in this area, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. Although both the University and the country fall within a medium-risk classification, the institution shows a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests that the University is more exposed to the dynamics that drive multiple affiliations. While often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This heightened exposure warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine scientific collaboration rather than administrative optimization.
With a Z-score of 1.592, the University's rate of retractions is at a significant level, amplifying a vulnerability that is present but less pronounced in the national system (Z-score: 0.228). This is a critical finding. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.
The University demonstrates exceptional performance in this indicator with a Z-score of -0.434, effectively acting as a firewall against a national trend of significant risk (Z-score: 2.800). This low rate is a strong positive signal, indicating that the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. It suggests that the University's academic influence is robustly validated by the global scientific community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international research networks and a commitment to external scrutiny.
The institution shows effective risk moderation in its publication practices, with a Z-score of 0.423, well below the national average of 1.015. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the University successfully mitigates a risk that appears more common across the country. This superior performance indicates that the institution exercises strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the University protects itself from severe reputational risks and shows a commitment to channeling its resources away from 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The University's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.171, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.488. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is minimal, the data suggests the institution is beginning to show signals that warrant review before they escalate. It serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that extensive author lists are reserved for legitimate, large-scale collaborations, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' or political authorship.
With a Z-score of 1.710, the institution shows a high exposure to this risk, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.389. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is much higher than the impact of institution-led research, signals a potential sustainability risk. The value suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a crucial consideration for long-term scientific autonomy.
The University displays a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.720 in a context where the national average is low (-0.570). This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme productivity. A high indicator in this area alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require a review of institutional incentive structures.
The institution demonstrates strong, differentiated management of its internal publication channels, with a Z-score of 0.296, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.979. This performance indicates a healthy avoidance of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By not over-relying on its own journals, the University ensures its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research competes on the world stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The University achieves relative containment of a critical national issue, with a Z-score of 1.673 against a national average of 2.965. Although risk signals for redundant publication exist within the institution, it is clear that it operates with more order and control than the national average. This suggests a more robust stance against 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple articles to inflate productivity. This containment reflects a greater institutional focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing sheer volume, which is a positive sign for research integrity.
