National Technical University - Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National Technical University - Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.177 reflecting both exceptional governance in specific areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates remarkable strengths in maintaining low-risk profiles for hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and reliance on institutional journals, indicating robust internal policies that promote transparency and external validation. These strengths are foundational to its notable research capacity, evidenced by its strong national standing in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Business, Management and Accounting; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Physics and Astronomy. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by significant risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output (salami slicing), which exceed even the high national averages. These practices directly challenge the core tenets of academic excellence and social responsibility inherent to any higher education mission, as they prioritize metric inflation over the creation of genuine, externally validated knowledge. To secure its long-term reputation and align its scientific practices with its research potential, it is recommended that the University leverage its evident governance strengths to implement targeted strategies that address these critical citation and publication integrity issues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.282, significantly lower than the national average of -0.785, the institution demonstrates an exemplary and clear approach to authorship attribution. This result indicates a very low-risk environment where the practice of strategically inflating institutional credit through "affiliation shopping" is absent. The institution's performance surpasses the already low-risk national standard, reflecting a culture of transparency and precision in acknowledging institutional contributions, which reinforces the integrity of its collaborative network.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.071 contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk score of 0.056, showcasing effective institutional resilience. This low rate suggests that the University's quality control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, this institution's ability to maintain a low rate points towards robust pre-publication supervision and a strong integrity culture, preventing the kind of recurring methodological flaws or malpractice that would otherwise lead to a higher volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

This indicator presents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score of 6.436 substantially exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This result flags a severe risk, suggesting the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic warns of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal citation practices rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits commendable management in its publication strategy, with a Z-score of 0.203, far below the national average of 2.278. This performance indicates that the University effectively moderates a risk that appears to be common across the country. While a sporadic presence in such journals can occur, the institution's low rate demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects it from the severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing and suggests a high level of information literacy among its researchers, preventing the waste of valuable scientific resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.429 compared to the country's -0.684, the institution shows signs of an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Although the overall risk level is low and statistically normal for its context, the rate is slightly higher than the national average. This subtle increase could be an early signal of practices like author list inflation or "honorary" authorships, which dilute individual accountability and transparency. It serves as a prompt to ensure that all authorship attributions are justified by significant intellectual contribution and are not merely political or honorary.

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

The institution demonstrates exceptional scientific autonomy and leadership, with a Z-score of -0.811, which is markedly better than the national average of -0.159. This highly favorable negative gap indicates that the research led by the institution's own authors achieves a greater impact than its overall collaborative output. This is a clear sign of strong internal capacity and intellectual ownership, confirming that its scientific prestige is structural and self-generated. The data suggests that the institution is not merely a passenger in high-impact collaborations but is a driver of excellence, a key indicator of research sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413, even lower than the country's very low average of -1.115, signals a complete absence of risk in this area. This "total operational silence" indicates a healthy research environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, but this institution's data shows no evidence of such outliers. This suggests a culture that discourages practices like coercive authorship or metric-driven publication strategies, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a strong commitment to external peer review, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (country score: 0.154). While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them creates conflicts of interest. This institution's very low rate indicates that it avoids the risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through independent, competitive review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating a clear preference for external validation over potentially biased internal "fast tracks."

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator is a global red flag for the institution, with a Z-score of 3.888 that is significantly higher than the already compromised national average of 2.716. This score points to an urgent and critical issue. The massive bibliographic overlap detected is a strong sign of data fragmentation or "salami slicing," a practice where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system but also prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant, novel knowledge, requiring immediate corrective action.