| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.823 | 1.800 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.230 | 0.437 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.247 | 1.325 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.031 | -0.082 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
4.794 | 5.104 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.095 | 3.814 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.595 | 1.980 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.649 | 0.102 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.521 | 0.930 |
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.102 that signals a need for strategic attention. The institution shows commendable strengths in moderating certain national risk trends, particularly in its lower-than-average rates of retracted output and hyperprolific authorship, suggesting effective internal quality controls. However, these strengths are offset by significant vulnerabilities, most critically a high dependency on external collaborations for impact and a marked tendency towards insular publication practices, including elevated rates of institutional self-citation and output in its own journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position within Georgia, ranking first in key areas such as Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, Chemistry, and Computer Science. This leadership position, central to its mission, is at risk. The identified integrity vulnerabilities, especially the gap in leadership impact, directly challenge the mission's goal to "maintain leadership" and "belong to the list of the world’s leading universities" by suggesting that its prestige may not be fully sustained by its own intellectual capacity. To fully align its practices with its ambition, the university should leverage its areas of strong governance to address these systemic risks, thereby ensuring its long-term reputation and its role in promoting "national and universal values" through robust and transparent research.
The institution's Z-score of 1.823 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.800. This alignment indicates that the university's approach to multiple affiliations reflects a systemic pattern common throughout Georgia's academic landscape. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, their prevalence at this level suggests a shared national practice. The medium risk level associated with this indicator warrants a review to ensure that these affiliations are primarily driven by genuine scientific collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a behavior that could be normalized within the national context.
With a Z-score of 0.230, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.437. This positive differential suggests a model of differentiated management where the university's internal quality control mechanisms are more effective at mitigating risks that appear more common across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate notably below the national standard indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes may be more robust, preventing systemic failures in methodological rigor or potential malpractice before they enter the scientific record. This represents a key strength in its integrity culture.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.247, which is considerably higher than the national average of 1.325. This reveals a high exposure to the risks associated with insular citation practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, potentially undermining its external credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.031, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.082. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall publication rate in such journals is minimal, the fact that the institution shows a slightly stronger signal than its national peers warrants a review. This could be an early indicator of a need to enhance information literacy and due diligence processes for selecting dissemination channels, ensuring that research resources are not inadvertently directed towards predatory or low-quality venues that pose a reputational risk.
The institution's Z-score of 4.794 is situated within a national context of significant risk, where the country average is 5.104. This situation represents an attenuated alert; while the university is operating in an environment where hyper-authorship is a critical issue, its score is slightly below the national average, indicating it has more control over this practice than its peers. This high national rate can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's relative containment of this trend is positive, but the significant risk level still requires vigilance to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 4.095, the institution not only registers a significant risk but also surpasses the already critical national average of 3.814, flagging a major strategic concern. This score represents a global red flag, indicating that the university leads in a risk metric within a country already highly compromised. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and is not reflective of its own structural capacity for innovation. This signals a critical sustainability risk, inviting urgent reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 1.595, notably lower than the national average of 1.980. This reflects a successful differentiated management strategy, where the university effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced in its national environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution demonstrates a healthier balance between quantity and quality, safeguarding the integrity of its authorship practices more effectively than its national counterparts.
The institution's Z-score of 0.649 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.102, indicating high exposure to the risks of academic endogamy. While in-house journals can be valuable, an excessive dependence on them creates a conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This high rate warns that a significant portion of its scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records. This practice limits global visibility and may compromise the competitive validation of its research.
With a Z-score of 1.521, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of redundant output compared to the national average of 0.930. This high exposure suggests that the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—is more prevalent here than in the rest of the country. This pattern is a cause for concern as it distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer review system, and signals a culture that may prioritize publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
