National University of Pharmacy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Pharmacy demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.148 reflecting a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits robust control over numerous operational risks, including redundant output, use of institutional journals, and multiple affiliations, often outperforming national standards. This solid foundation is complemented by notable thematic strengths, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing the university among Ukraine's Top 10 in key areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. However, this profile of excellence is challenged by significant risk signals in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and, most critically, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities directly threaten the universal academic goals of achieving genuine global impact and upholding scientific excellence. Such practices risk creating an insular reputation and devaluing research outputs, undermining the credibility built upon its thematic strengths. To secure its leadership position, the University should leverage its clear operational rigour to address these specific, high-impact areas, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its demonstrated scientific capabilities.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.885, indicating a very low risk level that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.785). This alignment demonstrates a commendable absence of questionable affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's low score suggests that its affiliations are a result of genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a transparent and well-governed approach to academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, showcasing notable resilience when compared to the medium-level risk observed nationally (Z-score: 0.056). This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic vulnerabilities present in its environment. A low rate of retractions is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and robust quality control prior to publication, signaling a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents the type of recurring methodological or ethical failures that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 4.130 is significant, placing it in a high-risk category that mirrors the critical national situation (Z-score: 4.357). Although the University's rate is slightly below the country average, it remains a global outlier, signaling a pattern of attenuated risk within a highly compromised environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or an academic 'echo chamber.' This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived influence may be oversized by internal citation dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, demanding a review of its citation patterns.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a critically high Z-score of 5.731, which not only represents a significant risk but also markedly accentuates the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.278). This finding is a severe alert, indicating that the institution is channeling a substantial portion of its research into outlets that fail to meet international quality or ethical standards. This practice exposes the University to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and systemic failure in due diligence when selecting publication venues. An immediate intervention is required to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the continued waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.012, the institution demonstrates a prudent and low-risk profile, managing its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.684). This low incidence of hyper-authorship indicates that the University is effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation. The data suggests a commitment to transparency and individual accountability in authorship, avoiding the dilution of responsibility that can occur with 'honorary' or political attributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.674 reveals a medium-level risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.159). This suggests the University is more sensitive than its national peers to a dependency on external collaboration for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether the institution's prestige is derived from its own structural capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, highlighting a need to foster more homegrown, high-impact research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.587, but this represents a slight divergence from the national context, which is almost entirely free of this risk signal (Z-score: -1.115). While the risk is not high, the appearance of this signal where it is otherwise absent nationally warrants review. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator, though minor, alerts to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, and could point to nascent risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-level risk dynamics observed across the country (Z-score: 0.154). This is a sign of strong governance, as the University avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in relying on in-house journals where it would act as both judge and party. By favoring external publication channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation over potentially inflating publication counts through internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.014 indicates a low and well-managed risk level, functioning as an effective filter against the critically high rate of redundant publication seen at the national level (Z-score: 2.716). This strong performance suggests the University's research culture prioritizes substance over volume. A low incidence of massive bibliographic overlap between publications signals a rejection of 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal units to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant work upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and avoids overburdening the peer review system.