Lviv Polytechnic National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Lviv Polytechnic National University demonstrates a complex profile, balancing areas of exceptional scientific integrity with significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.677, the institution showcases remarkable strengths, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership and its commitment to external validation, as evidenced by very low-risk indicators for the impact gap and publication in institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, this positive performance is contrasted by critical alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, where the university's risk levels significantly exceed the already high national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position in Ukraine, ranking #1 in key areas such as Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. This academic excellence is directly challenged by the identified integrity risks. The mission to form "wise, creative, and effective" leaders is undermined when institutional practices may prioritize publication volume over novel contribution and internal validation over global scientific dialogue. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research leadership to implement targeted reforms that address these specific integrity challenges, thereby securing its reputation as a true leader in national and international academia.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.616, slightly higher than the national average of -0.785. This score indicates an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk level is low and aligns with the national context, the university shows slightly more activity in this area than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation serves as a signal to ensure that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.436, the university shows a higher value compared to the national average of 0.056, placing it in a position of high exposure within a medium-risk national environment. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national standard alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 8.029 is a global red flag, drastically exceeding the already significant national average of 4.357. This result indicates that the institution leads risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be critically oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates differentiated management with a Z-score of 1.466, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. This indicates that while the risk of publishing in discontinued journals is a common issue in the country, the university moderates this risk more effectively than its peers. This performance suggests a stronger due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects itself from the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices, showcasing superior information literacy compared to the national context.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.089, the institution displays a prudent profile, showing more rigor than the national standard of -0.684. This lower score within a low-risk context suggests a healthy and transparent authorship culture. In many fields, extensive author lists are legitimate, but this indicator can also signal author list inflation. The university's low score indicates it is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby reinforcing individual accountability.

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

The university exhibits low-profile consistency and a significant strength with a Z-score of -2.512, far below the national average of -0.159. This very low-risk score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is substantially higher than the impact of its overall output. This is a clear sign of strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners. This performance aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard, confirming that excellence metrics result from real internal capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.681 represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -1.115. While the university's risk level is low, it shows signals of hyperprolific activity that are less common in the rest of the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a gentle alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and to guard against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a context where the country average is 0.154. This very low-risk score is a clear strength, indicating the institution does not replicate the medium-risk practices observed nationally. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. By avoiding this, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that it is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 3.754, the institution presents a global red flag, significantly amplifying the critical risk already present at the national level (2.716). This extremely high value is a serious alert to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications, as suggested by this score, distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This practice indicates a focus on volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a critical issue that requires urgent strategic review.