Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics demonstrates a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and authorial responsibility, yet facing critical challenges in citation and publication practices. With an overall score of 0.662, the institution excels in areas that signal robust internal capacity, showing very low risk in the impact gap from collaborations, the rate of hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths align well with its mission to be a leader in applied IT and innovation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, NURE's strongest thematic areas nationally include Physics and Astronomy, Computer Science, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, reinforcing its specialized profile. However, this positive image is severely undermined by significant risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output (salami slicing), which suggest a focus on metric inflation over genuine scientific contribution. These practices directly threaten the credibility of its "innovation" focus and contradict the principles of excellence and sustainability central to its mission. To fully realize its strategic vision, it is imperative that the university addresses these integrity vulnerabilities, ensuring its operational practices reflect the high standards of its stated goals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.920, which contrasts with the national average of -0.785. This moderate deviation from the national standard suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's higher rate warrants a review to ensure these are not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or a pattern of “affiliation shopping.” This signal indicates a need to verify that affiliation practices are transparent and reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than a tool for metric enhancement.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.033 compared to the national average of 0.056, the institution demonstrates notable resilience. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk more prevalent at the country level. Retractions are complex events, but a rate below the national average points towards robust quality control and responsible supervision prior to publication. This performance indicates a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor observed elsewhere in the national system.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 6.592 is critically high, exceeding even the country's already significant average of 4.357. This metric constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but leads a high-risk practice within a compromised national environment. 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 without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, demanding urgent intervention.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution records a Z-score of 0.793, a figure that, while indicating a medium risk, is substantially lower than the national average of 2.278. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. Although a sporadic presence in such journals can occur, the institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than its peers suggests a more effective due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. This proactive stance helps mitigate the severe reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.690 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.684, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and aligns perfectly with the expected behavior for its context and size. This alignment suggests that the university's collaborative practices are standard and do not show signs of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. The data does not point to any systemic use of 'honorary' or political authorship, reflecting a healthy and transparent approach to assigning credit in collaborative research.

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

With a Z-score of -2.006 against a national average of -0.159, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency. The complete absence of risk signals in this area, which is even more pronounced than the national standard, is a significant strength. This very low score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners. It reflects a high degree of intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring that its excellence metrics are a true representation of its own research capabilities and not just a result of strategic positioning in partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.189 is exceptionally low, falling even below the national average of -1.115 and signaling a total operational silence in this risk area. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to an already secure national environment, is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture. It suggests that the university fosters a balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the potential for coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or other dynamics that prioritize raw metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. This reflects a commitment to meaningful intellectual contribution from its authors.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.154, which indicates a medium risk level. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 5.450 is alarmingly high and significantly surpasses the country's already critical average of 2.716. This metric is a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in a high-risk practice within a nationally compromised system. Such a high value points directly to the practice of dividing coherent studies 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 new knowledge, requiring immediate and decisive corrective action.