| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.146 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.239 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.076 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.917 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.554 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.368 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
10.073 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.410 | 2.965 |
Siberian Federal University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity risk score of 1.445 indicating a medium level of exposure. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices and robust post-publication quality control, as evidenced by very low-risk signals in retracted output and hyper-authorship. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities in its publication and citation strategies, particularly an extremely high reliance on institutional journals and a significant rate of self-citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Chemistry (ranked 3rd nationally), Physics and Astronomy (6th), and Environmental Science (11th), showcasing clear pockets of high-impact research. These achievements, however, are at odds with integrity risks that challenge the core of its mission to meet "international standards" and foster an "advanced research infrastructure." Practices suggesting academic endogamy and impact inflation directly undermine its goal of producing "competitive experts" recognized on a global stage. To fully leverage its scientific potential, it is recommended that the University align its dissemination and validation strategies with its proven thematic excellences, fostering a culture of international peer review and external collaboration to ensure its contributions are both impactful and globally credible.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.146, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk framework, the institution shows a greater propensity for this behavior than its national peers. This elevated rate suggests a higher exposure to the risks associated with this practice. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a dynamic that warrants closer monitoring to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.228). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the systemic vulnerabilities seen elsewhere in the country. Such a low rate is a positive signal of responsible supervision and effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. It suggests that the institution's integrity culture is robust, successfully preventing the types of recurring malpractice or methodological failures that can lead to retractions.
The university's Z-score of 3.239 is critically high and exceeds the already significant national average of 2.800, marking it as a global red flag. This finding indicates that the institution not only participates in but leads the risk metrics within a country already highly compromised by this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this extreme value signals a profound scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic presents a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's academic influence is dangerously oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.076 is slightly above the national average of 1.015, with both falling into the medium-risk category. This indicates that the university is more exposed to this risk factor than its environment's average. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.917, which is well below the national average of -0.488. This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. The data does not suggest a tendency towards author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This low-risk signal indicates that authorship practices are transparent and align with legitimate collaborative norms, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from questionable 'honorary' attributions.
With a Z-score of 0.554, the university shows a wider gap than the national average of 0.389, indicating a higher exposure to this particular risk. A significant positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential risk to sustainability. This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. It invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.368, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.570. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows early signals of this activity that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight uptick alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to the need to preemptively address risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The university's Z-score of 10.073 is exceptionally high, representing a critical anomaly that dramatically amplifies the vulnerabilities present in the national system (Z-score: 0.979). This extreme reliance on in-house journals raises a significant conflict of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This score warns of severe academic endogamy, where a substantial portion of scientific production may be bypassing independent external peer review. Such a practice severely limits global visibility and suggests the systemic use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a Z-score of 2.410, which, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates relative containment compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.965. This suggests that although signals of data fragmentation exist, the university operates with more control than the national trend. The score still alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that distorts scientific evidence. However, the institution appears to be moderating this practice more effectively than its peers.
