| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.322 | -0.749 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | 0.304 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.404 | 0.846 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.178 | -0.312 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.230 | 0.914 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.734 | 3.283 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.706 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
20.936 | 1.464 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.195 | 1.973 |
The Belarusian National Technical University (BNTU) presents a dual profile in its scientific integrity assessment, with an overall risk score of 2.099. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas related to authorship and affiliation management, including very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, indicating robust internal governance and a culture of responsible collaboration. These strengths are complemented by a strong position in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its leadership in the field of Energy within Belarus. However, this positive profile is contrasted by significant risks in its publication strategy, most notably an extremely high rate of output in its own institutional journals and a significant rate of redundant publications (salami slicing). These practices directly challenge the university's mission to provide "high-quality research" and make "significant contributions," as they suggest a focus on internal validation and metric inflation over external, competitive peer review and substantive scientific advancement. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, BNTU is advised to undertake a comprehensive review of its publication and dissemination policies, ensuring that its clear research strengths are communicated through channels that reinforce its commitment to global excellence and scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.322, which is well below the national average of -0.749. This result reflects a commendable absence of risk signals in an environment that already maintains a low-risk profile. The university's performance suggests a clear and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate indicates that it effectively avoids any practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing its commitment to straightforward and honest academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.304. This disparity suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are more effective than the national standard, serving as a resilient buffer against the systemic risks present in its environment. A rate significantly lower than its peers indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully identifying and correcting potential errors. This demonstrates a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where supervision and quality assurance are prioritized, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 2.404, a medium-risk value that is notably higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.846. This indicates that the institution is more exposed than its national peers to practices that could suggest scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for building on established research, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic creates a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal citations rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.178, a low-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.312. Although both the institution and the country operate at a low-risk level, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability within the university. It suggests that, while not a systemic problem, there are isolated instances of publication in channels that may not meet international quality standards. This warrants a review of dissemination guidelines to ensure researchers are equipped to perform due diligence in selecting journals, thereby preventing the escalation of reputational risks and the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -1.230, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, distinguishing itself positively from the national medium-risk average of 0.914. This finding suggests a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. The university's practices appear to be independent of national trends that might encourage author list inflation. This serves as a strong signal that the institution maintains clear and transparent authorship criteria, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.734 in this indicator, a medium-risk value that shows relative containment compared to the country's significant-risk average of 3.283. Although a gap exists, suggesting some reliance on external partners for impact, the university manages this dependency with more control than the national average. This value invites a strategic reflection on its research model. It suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. The institution is encouraged to analyze whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, which could pose a long-term sustainability risk.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, positioning it more favorably than the national low-risk average of -0.706. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with the institution's complete absence of risk signals aligning with and even exceeding the national standard. This result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data suggests the university fosters an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of sheer volume, avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 20.936 represents a significant risk and a critical point of concern, drastically amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 1.464. This extremely high value indicates an excessive dependence on its own in-house journals, creating a clear conflict of interest where the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice strongly suggests a state of academic endogamy, where a substantial portion of scientific output may be bypassing independent external peer review. This not only limits global visibility and impact but also raises the possibility that internal channels are being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without the validation of a competitive, external process.
With a Z-score of 3.195, the institution shows a significant rate of redundant output, a level that accentuates the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (1.973). This high value is a critical alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where coherent studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a pattern suggests that the institutional culture may prioritize volume of publications over the generation of significant new knowledge. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, ultimately undermining the integrity of the research it produces.
