| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.110 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.334 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.640 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.358 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.336 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.085 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.127 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.868 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.396 | 2.965 |
The National Research Nuclear University MEPhI presents a moderate overall risk profile (Z-score: 1.505), characterized by a mix of commendable strengths and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates effective internal governance and resilience in several key areas, performing better than the national average in managing Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output. However, this is contrasted by critical alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and Hyper-Authored Output, where the university's risk levels are exceptionally high and deviate sharply from national norms. These weaknesses, alongside notable exposure in Hyperprolific Authorship and Multiple Affiliations, pose a direct challenge to the university's mission to "excel in creating applicable science" and "energize and improve people’s lives." The identified integrity risks could undermine the credibility and robustness of the very scientific excellence that underpins its mission. This is particularly salient given the institution's strong national leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Medicine (6th), Physics and Astronomy (15th), and Energy (16th). To safeguard its reputation and fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that MEPhI leverage its demonstrated capacity for effective governance to conduct a targeted review and reform of its authorship and pre-publication quality control protocols.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.110, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.401. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university demonstrates a significantly higher exposure to this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's elevated rate suggests a potential vulnerability. This pattern warrants a review to ensure that these affiliations consistently represent genuine, substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
The institution's Z-score of 2.334 marks a significant risk, particularly when contrasted with the more moderate national average of 0.228. This disparity suggests that the university is not only reflecting but actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system. A retraction rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern points beyond isolated errors to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates commendable control in a high-risk national environment, with a Z-score of 0.640 compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.800. This indicates a successful strategy of relative containment, where the university operates with more order than the national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines; however, by maintaining a moderate level, the institution effectively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This suggests that its academic influence is less likely to be oversized by internal dynamics and is instead validated through broader engagement with the global scientific community.
The institution showcases differentiated management of a common national risk, with a Z-score of 0.358 that is notably healthier than the country average of 1.015. This suggests that the university is more effective at moderating the tendency to publish in questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, but the institution's lower score indicates a more robust process for selecting dissemination channels. By better avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution actively protects itself from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's practices and the national norm, with its Z-score of 2.336 representing a significant-risk outlier in a country with a low-risk average of -0.488. This atypical risk activity is highly unusual for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, such a high score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to investigate and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise scientific integrity.
The institution shows a high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.085 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.389. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. The value suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners and not fully reflective of its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from its internal capabilities or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 1.127 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.570. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to hyperprolific authorship that are not prevalent elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This indicator serves as an alert to potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits effective management of a systemic national practice, with a Z-score of 0.868 that is more controlled than the national average of 0.979. This indicates that it successfully moderates the risks associated with publishing in its own journals. While in-house journals are valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them can create conflicts of interest. The institution's more balanced approach reduces the risk of academic endogamy and suggests that its scientific production is less likely to bypass independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and competitive validation.
In a national context where redundant publication is a significant issue, the institution demonstrates relative containment. Its Z-score of 2.396, while indicating a medium risk, is notably more controlled than the critical national average of 2.965. This suggests that while the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity may exist, the institution operates with more order than its peers. This relative control is important for protecting the integrity of the available scientific evidence and avoiding the overburdening of the peer-review system.
