| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.444 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.080 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.535 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.958 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.982 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.679 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.196 | 2.716 |
The National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy demonstrates a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in internal governance that effectively counteract several national risk trends. The institution's overall score of 0.108 reflects a solid foundation, particularly evident in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, alongside a commendable resilience against the country's higher rates of retractions and self-citation. These strengths align well with its prominent standing in key academic fields, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, placing it among the top 20 Ukrainian institutions for Arts and Humanities and top 30 for Social Sciences. However, this positive outlook is critically undermined by a significant vulnerability in the Rate of Redundant Output ('salami slicing'), which is alarmingly high even for a national context where this practice is prevalent. This specific issue directly challenges the university's mission to cultivate "honest, caring, creative personalities" who "act responsibly," as it prioritizes publication volume over the genuine creation and dissemination of knowledge. To fully realize its mission and secure its reputation for excellence, the institution must leverage its clear governance capabilities to urgently address this practice, thereby ensuring its operational conduct fully reflects its stated values of integrity and intellectual leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.444, a low-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.785. This indicates an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is low and consistent with the national context, the university shows slightly more activity in this area than its peers. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, but this minor elevation warrants observation to ensure it does not evolve into a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” which could compromise the transparency of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience. The university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This suggests that its quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are effective, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate would imply and reinforcing a culture of integrity.
The university's Z-score of 0.535 places it in the medium-risk category, a figure that indicates relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 4.357. Although risk signals for academic insularity are present within the institution, it is clear that it operates with more control than the national norm. Nevertheless, a medium level of self-citation still warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, posing a risk of endogamous impact inflation that should be monitored to ensure the institution's influence is based on global recognition.
The institution records a Z-score of 0.958, which, while in the medium-risk category, reflects differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 2.278. This indicates that while publishing in questionable journals is a shared challenge within the country, the university moderates this risk more effectively than its peers. This suggests a more rigorous due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. Still, the medium-risk level constitutes an alert that a portion of its scientific output may be channeled through media lacking international ethical standards, highlighting a continued need for information literacy to avoid reputational damage and wasted resources.
With a Z-score of -0.982, the institution exhibits a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard, which has an average score of -0.684. Both scores are in the low-risk range, but the university's even lower value points to a particularly robust stance on authorship. This suggests a clear distinction is made between necessary massive collaboration and inappropriate practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.679 signifies a prudent, low-risk profile that is notably stronger than the national average of -0.159. This result indicates that the university manages its research portfolio with greater rigor than the national standard. A low gap suggests that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead driven by a strong internal capacity for intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own structural capabilities.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 represents a state of total operational silence on this indicator, with a complete absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the very low-risk national average of -1.115. This exceptional result points to an academic environment where the balance between quantity and quality is carefully maintained. It strongly suggests that the institutional culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, achieving a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). The university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy seen in its environment. This indicates a strong commitment to seeking independent, external peer review for its research, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, global channels rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 4.196 is a global red flag, indicating a critical risk level that is significantly higher than the already compromised national average of 2.716. This result shows that the university not only participates in a generalized national issue but is a leader in this problematic practice. Such a high value is a clear alert for the systemic fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice severely distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and requiring urgent institutional intervention.
