Yugra State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yugra State University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.405 reflecting a combination of exceptional governance in certain areas and notable vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength and independence from national trends in its control over redundant publications, use of institutional journals, and management of hyperprolific authorship, indicating robust internal policies. However, areas of concern include a high dependency on external collaborations for impact, a tendency to publish in discontinued journals, and elevated rates of multiple affiliations and hyper-authorship. These risks require strategic attention to ensure they do not undermine the university's recognized thematic strengths, particularly in fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Environmental Science, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified integrity risks fundamentally challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can build upon its solid foundation of integrity and ensure its research contributions are both impactful and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.670 is notably higher than the national average of 0.401, indicating a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests that while multiple affiliations are a common feature of the national research landscape, the university shows a higher exposure to the associated risks. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are a legitimate result of substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. A high rate can signal "affiliation shopping," a practice that can distort the perception of an institution's research footprint and dilute its core academic identity.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retractions, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.228, which signals a moderate risk. This positive performance suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effective, acting as a resilient filter against the systemic risks present in the wider environment. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a consistently low rate like this is a strong indicator of robust pre-publication review processes and a healthy culture of methodological rigor that prevents systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a moderate risk with a Z-score of 1.207, a figure that, while indicating some level of self-citation, represents a significant containment of the issue compared to the critical national average of 2.800. This suggests that although the university shows some tendency towards internal citation, it operates with more control than its national peers. It is crucial to continue monitoring this indicator to prevent the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, a practice that can lead to an endogamous inflation of impact and limit the institution's recognition within the global academic community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 2.380 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.015, even though both fall within a medium-risk profile. This indicates that the institution is more exposed than its national counterparts to the risks of publishing in questionable outlets. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into predatory or low-impact venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.056, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the risk is low (Z-score: -0.488). This divergence suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to inflated author lists. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, their appearance in other contexts can signal a dilution of individual accountability and transparency. This indicator serves as a signal to review authorship practices and distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for "honorary" or political authorship, which undermines the integrity of the research record.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.232 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.389, pointing to a high exposure to dependency risk. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential risk to sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a performance that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.570. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a practice that poses a medium risk at the national level (Z-score: 0.979). This preventive stance is a sign of strong governance, as it avoids the inherent conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and sidesteps the risk of academic endogamy or using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates an exceptional degree of integrity with a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a near-total absence of redundant publications. This stands in stark contrast to the critical situation at the national level, where the Z-score is 2.965. This environmental disconnection highlights the effectiveness of the university's internal governance in promoting substantive research. This result suggests a culture that values significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units,' a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the academic review system.