| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.910 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.155 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.083 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.244 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.986 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.043 | 2.965 |
The Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score (-0.029) that reflects a performance aligned with the global average but masks significant internal strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices and publication channel selection, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and reliance on institutional journals. These strengths stand in stark opposition to two key areas of concern: a significant rate of institutional self-citation and a medium rate of redundant output, which suggest potential challenges in impact validation and publication strategy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the Institute's scientific leadership is most prominent in the fields of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, and Energy. While the institution's specific mission is not localized, the identified risks—particularly the creation of a potential 'echo chamber' through self-citation—could undermine any institutional goal centered on achieving genuine global excellence and fulfilling its social responsibility. Such practices may compromise the external perception of its strong thematic contributions. To fully capitalize on its robust governance in authorship and its scientific specialization, it is recommended that the Institute prioritizes a strategic review of its citation and publication fragmentation patterns to ensure its reputation for integrity matches its scientific output.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.910, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the Institute's score indicates a greater propensity for this behavior compared to its national peers. This suggests a high exposure to the underlying drivers of this risk. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's elevated rate warrants a review to ensure these practices are not primarily strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” but rather reflect genuine, substantive partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of retracted publications, a figure that contrasts sharply with the Russian Federation's medium-risk average of 0.228. This positive result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution's internal quality controls appear to effectively shield it from the systemic issues observed at the national level. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the Institute's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are robust, fostering a culture of methodological rigor and integrity that successfully prevents the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 4.155, a critically high value that positions it as a global red flag. This figure not only falls into the significant risk category but also substantially exceeds the country's already high average of 2.800. This indicates that the Institute is not just part of a compromised national environment but is an outlier that leads this problematic trend. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of an 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny and validation. This practice of endogamous impact inflation raises serious questions about whether the institution's perceived academic influence is a reflection of global community recognition or a product of internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.083, placing it in the low-risk category and demonstrating institutional resilience against a more challenging national backdrop (country Z-score of 1.015, medium risk). This suggests that the Institute's control mechanisms and researcher guidance are effective in mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. By successfully avoiding discontinued journals, the institution demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects its reputation and ensures its scientific output is not channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, a risk to which its national peers appear more susceptible.
With a Z-score of -1.244, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, which is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.488. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This score indicates that the institution's research culture effectively promotes transparency and individual accountability in authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or inflated author lists.
The institution's Z-score of -0.986 (very low risk) is a sign of significant strength, especially when compared to the national average of 0.389 (medium risk). This marked difference suggests a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the dependency on external partners for impact seen elsewhere in the country. A low score indicates that the Institute's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, built upon research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of scientific sustainability and confirms that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.570. This finding points to low-profile consistency, where the institution's governance standards for authorship appear more rigorous than the national norm. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, indicating that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices like coercive authorship or publication volume at the expense of meaningful intellectual contribution and scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low-risk profile in this area, effectively isolating itself from the national trend, where the country shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.979. This preventive isolation is a key strength, demonstrating that the institution avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive reliance on in-house journals. By favoring external, independent peer review, the Institute ensures its scientific production is validated competitively, enhancing its global visibility and steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 2.043 places it in the medium-risk category, a notable signal that warrants attention. However, this is a case of relative containment, as the score is considerably lower than the country's critical Z-score of 2.965 (significant risk). While the institution is not immune to the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity, it appears to operate with more order and control than the national average. This suggests that while mechanisms to curb 'salami slicing' could be strengthened, the institution is successfully moderating a vulnerability that is far more pronounced in the wider national system.
