State University of Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The State University of Management presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.013 indicating a medium level of exposure. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance and authorial practices, effectively isolating itself from national trends in areas like institutional journal usage, hyper-prolificacy, and hyper-authorship. It also shows commendable resilience by containing risks that are systemic in the Russian Federation, such as institutional self-citation and redundant output. However, these strengths are critically undermined by an alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals, which represents the most urgent vulnerability. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's core thematic strengths lie in Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risk of channeling research into low-quality outlets directly threatens any mission predicated on academic excellence and social responsibility, as it compromises the credibility and impact of its scientific contributions. A strategic focus on improving publication channel selection is essential to protect its reputational assets and align its operational practices with its clear academic potential.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.644, contrasting with the national average of 0.401. This indicates a notable level of institutional resilience, as the control mechanisms in place appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the national context suggests a tendency towards practices that may inflate institutional credit. The university’s low score demonstrates that it is not contributing to this dynamic, maintaining a clear and transparent profile of institutional collaboration that reinforces the integrity of its academic footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.126, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly lower than the national average of 0.228. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that is common within its national scientific system. Retractions are complex events, and a certain level is expected as part of the scientific self-correction process. However, the institution’s ability to maintain a rate below the national benchmark, even within a medium-risk band, points to more effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms compared to its peers, though continued monitoring is warranted to ensure these systems are robust.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.843, a medium-risk value that demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.800. This disparity suggests the university operates with more order and external focus than the national norm. While a high rate of self-citation can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' the institution successfully avoids the critical levels seen elsewhere in the country. This indicates a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and engaging with the broader global scientific community, thereby mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution displays a Z-score of 5.456, a critical value that signals a significant accentuation of risk compared to the national medium-risk average of 1.015. This finding is a major red flag, indicating that the university amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and indicating an urgent need for information literacy and policy implementation to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.195, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.488, the institution shows a very low-risk profile in this area. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard of responsible authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's excellent result suggests its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively avoiding any suspicion of 'honorary' or political authorship and reinforcing individual accountability.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.275 is notably higher than the national average of 0.389, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capabilities or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.897 is firmly in the very low-risk category, outperforming the national low-risk average of -0.570. This low-profile consistency reflects an environment where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's negative score indicates that it successfully avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, marking a case of preventive isolation from the national medium-risk average of 0.979. This result shows that the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university’s minimal reliance on such channels is a clear strength, signaling a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation through standard international publication routes.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.374 places it in the medium-risk category, but this represents a state of relative containment compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.965. Although some risk signals exist, the center operates with substantially more order than the national average. High rates of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to artificially inflate productivity. The university’s ability to keep this indicator far below the critical national level suggests its policies or academic culture effectively discourage such practices, promoting the publication of more significant and coherent bodies of work.