Odessa National Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Odessa National Medical University demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile with a score of 0.807, characterized by significant strengths in operational governance but also marked by specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits exemplary control over authorship practices, with very low risk in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by a critical risk in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which significantly exceeds the national average and requires immediate strategic intervention. This primary weakness is accompanied by medium-level risks in retraction rates, self-citation, impact dependency, and redundant publications, suggesting a need for enhanced quality control and research validation mechanisms. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's leadership is most pronounced in Dentistry, where it ranks first in Ukraine, representing a key area of excellence. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly the reliance on low-quality publication channels, pose a direct challenge to the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the University prioritize a comprehensive review of its publication and dissemination policies, focusing on fostering a culture of high-impact, ethically sound research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -1.712 against a national average of -0.785, Odessa National Medical University shows an exceptionally low incidence of multiple affiliations. This result indicates a robust and transparent system for declaring academic adscriptions, aligning with the low-risk profile observed nationally but demonstrating an even more conservative practice. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's very low rate provides strong assurance that its institutional credit is not being artificially inflated through strategic "affiliation shopping," reflecting clear and well-governed authorship protocols.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.089, which is statistically similar to the national average of 0.056. This alignment suggests that the University's experience with retractions reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a medium-risk score indicates that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges. This shared vulnerability points to a need for a deeper qualitative review to determine if these events stem from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, a concern relevant both for the institution and its national peers.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of 1.443 for institutional self-citation presents a medium-risk signal, yet it demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significantly higher average of 4.357. This indicates that while the institution is not immune to practices that can lead to academic isolation, it manages to moderate a risk that is far more pronounced at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this score warns of a potential 'echo chamber' effect. It suggests that a portion of the institution's academic influence may be reinforced by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition, warranting a review to ensure its work receives sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a critical vulnerability with a Z-score of 4.651, a figure that not only falls into the significant risk category but also starkly amplifies the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (2.278). This severe discrepancy constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and immediate need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the investment of resources in predatory or low-quality publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.757, which is slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.684, the institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship. This low-risk score suggests that the University manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. It indicates that practices such as author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships are not a systemic issue, reflecting a culture where individual accountability and transparency in collaborative work are well-maintained.

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

The University's Z-score of 2.156 indicates a medium-level risk, representing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.159, which sits in the low-risk band. This gap suggests that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to impact dependency than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This score invites reflection on whether the University's perceived scientific prestige is derived from its own structural capacity or is overly dependent on its strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category and is even lower than the already minimal national average of -1.115. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding hyperprolificacy, confirming an absolute absence of risk signals in this area. This excellent result indicates that the institutional culture effectively balances productivity with quality, avoiding dynamics where authorship might be assigned without meaningful intellectual contribution. It points to a healthy research environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the sheer volume of publications.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from a risk that is present at a medium level across the country (0.154). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance. While in-house journals can be valuable, the University's low score indicates it avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated against global standards, thereby enhancing its international visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.953 for redundant output places it at a medium-risk level, but this figure shows relative containment compared to the significant risk level seen nationally (2.716). This suggests that although signals of data fragmentation exist, the University operates with more control than the national average. This score serves as a warning against the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. While the situation is less critical than in the surrounding environment, it still indicates a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.