| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.754 | 1.800 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.418 | 0.437 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.639 | 1.325 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.335 | -0.082 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.056 | 5.104 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.459 | 3.814 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 1.980 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.102 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.587 | 0.930 |
Tbilisi State Medical University (TSMU) presents a profile of pronounced strengths and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.172. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in key areas of scientific integrity, exhibiting very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results indicate a robust culture of seeking external validation and avoiding academic endogamy, significantly outperforming national trends. This strong foundation supports TSMU's leadership position within Georgia, particularly in its top-ranked thematic areas of Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is critically challenged by a significant dependency on external collaborations for research impact, a vulnerability that not only exceeds the national average but also directly questions the long-term sustainability of its research prestige. This dependency, along with medium-risk signals in publication practices, could undermine the core tenets of its mission to generate and disseminate "high quality" knowledge. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, TSMU should leverage its evident internal controls to foster greater intellectual leadership in its research, thereby transforming its collaborative success into a more resilient and self-sustaining model of scientific excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.754 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 1.800. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, where TSMU effectively mitigates the systemic risks of affiliation inflation that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. TSMU’s low score suggests that its collaborative frameworks are well-governed and that its engagement in partnerships is driven by genuine scientific cooperation rather than a strategy of "affiliation shopping," reinforcing the integrity of its institutional credit.
With a Z-score of 0.418, the university's performance is nearly identical to the national average of 0.437. This alignment suggests that the rate of retractions at TSMU reflects a systemic pattern shared across the national research landscape. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a medium-risk score indicates that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing challenges. This rate, being typical for its environment, points to a shared vulnerability in the integrity culture and suggests that a qualitative review of internal review processes would be a prudent step to prevent potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The university demonstrates an outstandingly low Z-score of -1.639, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 1.325. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national average suggests a tendency towards scientific isolation. TSMU, by contrast, actively avoids this risk. Its very low rate is a strong indicator that the institution's work is validated by the broader global community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber,' effectively preventing endogamous impact inflation and confirming that its academic influence is built on external recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 0.335 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.082. This finding indicates that TSMU shows a greater sensitivity than its national peers to publishing in journals that do not meet long-term international quality standards. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific production into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets, thereby preventing a waste of institutional resources.
With a Z-score of 1.056, the university shows a medium-risk signal for hyper-authorship, yet it demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 5.104. This suggests that while TSMU is not entirely immune to the national trend of author list inflation, its internal mechanisms are providing a degree of control. This signal serves as a reminder to diligently distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 4.459 is a global red flag, as it not only falls into the significant risk category but also surpasses the already critical national average of 3.814. This result points to an extreme dependency on external partners for achieving scientific impact. A wide positive gap suggests that while the university is involved in high-impact research, its prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding urgently invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where TSMU does not exercise intellectual leadership, posing a long-term risk to its scientific sustainability.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a state of preventive isolation from the national context, where the average score is a medium-risk 1.980. This result is a significant strength, showing that TSMU does not replicate the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes observed elsewhere in the country. This very low incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, and thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates in preventive isolation from the national environment, which shows a medium-risk score of 0.102. This demonstrates a commendable commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on its own journals for publication, TSMU sidesteps the inherent conflict of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication and enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.587, which, while indicating a medium risk, reflects differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 0.930. This suggests that TSMU is moderating the practice of 'salami slicing' more effectively than its peers. Nonetheless, the presence of a medium-risk signal serves as an alert. It points to instances of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. Continued oversight is necessary to ensure research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.
