Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University demonstrates a complex and multifaceted scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.543 reflecting a balance of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits commendable resilience, effectively mitigating several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in its management of retractions, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals. Key strengths are evident in its extremely low-risk approach to publishing in institutional journals and its normal levels of hyper-authorship, indicating a solid foundation of good governance. However, vulnerabilities emerge in areas such as a higher-than-average rate of multiple affiliations, a notable dependency on external collaborations for impact, and a pronounced tendency toward redundant publications. These challenges must be addressed to fully align with the university's mission to cultivate "competitive and in-demand experts" and uphold "high standards in the sustainable development of society." The institution's academic excellence is clear from its SCImago Institutions Rankings data, with leading national positions in fields like Economics, Econometrics and Finance (1st), Arts and Humanities (2nd), Business, Management and Accounting (2nd), and Medicine (2nd). To protect and enhance this leadership, it is crucial to ensure that its research practices are as robust as its academic output. By focusing on policies that reinforce intellectual leadership and prioritize substantive contributions over sheer volume, the university can fortify its integrity framework and more effectively translate its impressive disciplinary strengths into sustainable, globally recognized impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.898, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.015. This constitutes a moderate deviation from the national baseline, indicating that the university displays a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate suggests a need to review institutional policies. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the university's distinct research identity and misrepresent its collaborative contributions. A proactive review of authorship and affiliation guidelines is recommended to ensure transparency and proper credit attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.361, the university's rate of retracted publications is lower than the national average of 0.548. This finding points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution appears to moderate a risk that is more common across the country. Although any retraction signals a potential issue, the university's relative success suggests its quality control and supervision mechanisms may be more effective than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to systemic failures; however, in this case, the university demonstrates a capacity to contain this risk, reflecting a more robust integrity culture compared to its environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.364, markedly lower than the national average of 1.618. This significant difference highlights a case of differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is otherwise prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the high national average points to a systemic risk of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a much lower rate, the university demonstrates stronger integration with the global scientific community and avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.673 for publications in discontinued journals, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's critical Z-score of 2.749. This suggests that although the university is not immune to the national trend of publishing in questionable venues, it operates with more order and diligence than the average. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices. The university's ability to partially mitigate this widespread national issue indicates its control mechanisms are more effective, though continued vigilance and researcher training are essential.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.668, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is in close alignment with the national average of -0.649. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context and size. This indicator is primarily a concern when high rates appear outside of 'Big Science' contexts, as it can signal author list inflation or a dilution of accountability. The university's low and nationally consistent score indicates that its collaborative practices are standard and do not raise concerns about 'honorary' or political authorship, aligning with transparent and accountable research norms.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The university's Z-score of 1.233 reveals a significantly wider impact gap compared to the national average of 0.199. This indicates a high exposure to sustainability risks, suggesting the institution is more prone to this alert than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous. This invites critical reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could compromise its long-term research autonomy and sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution registers a Z-score of -0.892 in this indicator, a slight divergence from the national average of -0.980, which sits at a very low risk level. This subtle difference indicates the emergence of risk signals at the university that are largely absent in the rest of the country. While the overall risk remains low, this variance warrants attention. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that institutional pressures do not inadvertently prioritize quantity over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This very low score is a significant strength, demonstrating that the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest by not over-relying on its own journals for dissemination. This practice mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to global validation channels enhances the credibility and visibility of its research, reinforcing its reputation for quality.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 1.588, the university's rate of redundant output is substantially higher than the national average of 0.793. This signals high exposure, suggesting the institution is more prone to this risk than its environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This elevated rate is a significant concern, as it not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer review system. It points to a need for stronger institutional guidance on publication ethics to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over volume.