| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.066 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.659 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.435 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.257 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.561 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.817 | 2.965 |
Dagestan State University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in individual research conduct but challenged by systemic issues in citation and publication practices. With an overall risk score of 0.287, the institution demonstrates notable areas of concern, particularly a critically high rate of institutional self-citation that exceeds the national average. However, this is counterbalanced by exemplary performance in areas such as the low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authored output, and publication in its own journals, indicating strong internal governance over individual accountability and academic endogamy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are most prominent in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 26th nationally), Chemistry (58th), and Social Sciences (63rd). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, especially the insular citation patterns, directly challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. True excellence is predicated on external validation and global impact, which is undermined by self-referential 'echo chambers.' To fully leverage its thematic potential, it is recommended that the university focus on fostering a culture of broader scholarly engagement and implementing stricter due diligence for publication venues, thereby aligning its operational integrity with its academic ambitions.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.066, while the national average is 0.401. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution demonstrates differentiated management. It effectively moderates a risk that appears more common in the national scientific system. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's lower score suggests a more controlled approach to affiliations, reducing the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution shows a low-risk profile that contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.228. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks present in the country. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. The university's favorable score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust, protecting it from the vulnerabilities in research integrity culture that may be affecting its national peers.
The institution's Z-score for Institutional Self-Citation is 3.659, a critically high value that surpasses the already significant national average of 2.800. This situation constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the institution not only participates in but also amplifies a vulnerability present in the national system. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of scientific isolation. It suggests the formation of an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice leads to endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.435, which is higher than the national average of 1.015, though both fall within a medium-risk level. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks. There is an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.257, a very low-risk value that is well below the low-risk national average of -0.488. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the institutional level aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This score confirms that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship. This indicates a healthy culture of individual accountability in research contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.561, the institution shows a higher value than the national average of 0.389, placing it in a position of high exposure within a shared medium-risk context. This score suggests that the institution is more prone to this specific risk than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The university's score suggests that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the country's low-risk score of -0.570. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals at the university reinforces the secure standard observed nationally. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's excellent score indicates a strong balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that its research environment does not incentivize practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates exceptional control in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.979. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its national environment. By not over-relying on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice strengthens its commitment to independent external peer review, avoids the risk of academic endogamy, and ensures its scientific output competes for validation on a global stage rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 1.817 places it at a medium-risk level, which represents a state of relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.965. Although risk signals for redundant publication exist, the university operates with more order and control than the national average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's score, while indicating a need for vigilance, shows that it is less affected by this issue than its peers, suggesting that its policies or academic culture are partially effective in promoting the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
