Yaroslavl State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yaroslavl State University demonstrates a robust and largely positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.167 that reflects a commendable performance in multiple key areas. The institution exhibits exceptional control over practices such as hyper-authorship, publication in institutional journals, and dependency on external collaborations for impact, indicating strong internal governance and a commitment to authentic scientific leadership. These strengths are particularly relevant given the University's high national standing in several disciplines, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top national institutions in Chemistry (16th), Psychology (26th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (27th). However, this strong foundation is critically undermined by a significant alert in the Rate of Redundant Output, which is exceptionally high. This practice directly conflicts with the University's mission to be a "centre for fundamental, applied sciences and innovation" and to uphold the "best scientific traditions." Addressing this single, concentrated area of risk is paramount to ensure that the institution's operational practices fully align with its stated mission of excellence and its responsibility in training "highly qualified professionals." By focusing strategic efforts on promoting impactful, consolidated research over fragmented outputs, the University can solidify its reputation as a leader in both scientific contribution and ethical conduct.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.316, which is below the national average of 0.401. This suggests a differentiated management of collaborative practices compared to the national trend. Although the risk level is moderate, the University appears to moderate behaviors that are more common across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the institution's contained rate indicates a reduced tendency toward strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a more controlled and potentially more transparent approach to declaring collaborative work than its national peers.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.165, the institution shows a significantly lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.228. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive signal that pre-publication review processes and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to such corrective actions and reinforcing the integrity of the institution's research culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for this indicator is 2.370, a value that, while indicating a medium risk level, shows relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.800. Although the institution displays a tendency toward self-referential work, it operates with more moderation than the national scientific system. This suggests that while there is a risk of creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally, the University is less prone to the endogamous impact inflation that appears to be a more critical issue at the national level, maintaining a degree of external validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.262 is substantially lower than the national average of 1.015, indicating effective control over publication channels. This performance highlights the institution's resilience against the systemic national trend of publishing in questionable venues. It suggests that the University's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, successfully avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international standards. This protects the institution's reputation and ensures research resources are not wasted on outlets that lack credibility.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.247, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.488. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy approach to authorship attribution. The data suggests that the University's research culture promotes clear individual accountability and transparency, effectively avoiding the practice of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute the meaning of intellectual contribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.968, contrasted with the national average of 0.389, signals a remarkable degree of scientific autonomy. This result indicates a preventive isolation from the national trend of dependency on external partners for impact. The University demonstrates that its scientific prestige is built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than relying on strategic positioning in collaborations led by others. This is a clear indicator of a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.607 is statistically similar to the national average of -0.570. This alignment indicates a state of normality, where the risk level associated with hyperprolific authors is as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest an unusual prevalence of extreme individual publication volumes, which can sometimes point to imbalances between quantity and quality or problematic authorship practices. The University's profile in this regard is consistent with the national standard.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.979. This demonstrates a clear institutional policy, formal or informal, of prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house publication. By avoiding the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated through competitive, global channels. This commitment to external scrutiny enhances the credibility and visibility of its research, showing a clear disconnection from the riskier practices observed nationally.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 6.347, the institution is a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already compromised in this area (national average of 2.965). This critically high value points to a systemic practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the scientific review system but also distorts the body of available evidence by prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent and deep integrity assessment is required to address this issue, which severely undermines the institution's scientific credibility.