| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.514 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.446 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.913 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.456 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.955 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.997 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.251 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.860 | 2.716 |
Bogomolets National Medical University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.212 that reflects a clear dichotomy between its governance policies and publication practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a commendable absence of risk in areas related to authorship management, such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Multiple Affiliations, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These results suggest robust internal controls and a culture that values transparency and external validation. This operational rigor is further evidenced by its successful containment of risks like institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, where it performs considerably better than the national average. However, this positive picture is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in post-research stages, most notably a significant-risk rating in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and a medium-risk exposure in the Rate of Retracted Output. These weaknesses directly challenge the institution's scientific credibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Dentistry, Medicine, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, fields where scientific precision and ethical integrity are paramount. The detected risks, particularly data fragmentation and retractions, directly undermine the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility inherent to a leading medical university, as they can compromise the reliability of health-related knowledge. It is therefore recommended that the University leverage its clear administrative strengths to implement targeted interventions and training focused on improving publication ethics and reinforcing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -1.514 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.785. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University’s exceptionally low rate indicates a clear and transparent approach to institutional credit, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing a culture of unambiguous accountability in its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.446, the institution shows a higher propensity for this risk compared to the national average of 0.056. This indicates a heightened exposure to integrity issues, suggesting that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less effective than those of its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding suggests that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be present, warranting an immediate qualitative verification by management to strengthen oversight and prevent future incidents.
The institution's Z-score of 1.913 is notably lower than the country's Z-score of 4.357. This demonstrates a capacity for relative containment; while some risk signals are present, the University operates with more control than the national average, which faces a significant challenge in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University successfully moderates this practice, avoiding the more severe "echo chambers" observed nationally. This suggests a healthier integration with the global scientific community and a reduced risk of inflating its academic influence through purely internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.456, substantially lower than the national average of 2.278. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the University effectively moderates a risk that is far more common across the country. This strong performance constitutes a critical defense against reputational damage, indicating that the institution exercises superior due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, it protects its resources and researchers from association with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.955, which is lower than the national average of -0.684, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its authorship practices. This indicates that it manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a culture that values individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 1.997 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.159, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a potential risk to long-term sustainability. It suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on how to foster more internal intellectual leadership to ensure that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own core capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.251, compared to the national average of -1.115, signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk. The complete absence of signals, even below the low national baseline, points to an exemplary balance between quantity and quality in its research environment. This result strongly suggests that the University's culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or productivity at the expense of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268 in a national context where the average is 0.154, the institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a common risk dynamic. The University does not replicate the national tendency to rely on in-house publications, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This commitment to independent, external peer review is a significant strength, as it mitigates the risk of academic endogamy, enhances the global visibility of its research, and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 2.860 is not only high but also exceeds the already critical national average of 2.716, positioning it as a global red flag. This indicates that the University leads risk metrics in a country already highly compromised by this practice. Such a high value points to a systemic issue of data fragmentation, where coherent studies may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system, signaling an urgent need to audit publication ethics and reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
