| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.056 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.920 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.137 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.040 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.145 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.056 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.224 | 2.965 |
Irkutsk State Technical University demonstrates a complex but promising scientific integrity profile, marked by significant operational strengths alongside critical vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.804, the institution excels in maintaining intellectual leadership and fostering a culture of accountability, showing very low risk in areas such as impact dependency, hyperprolific authorship, and use of institutional journals. However, this robust internal governance is contrasted by significant risks in its external dissemination practices, specifically an alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals and an exceptionally high rate of institutional self-citation. These challenges directly threaten the university's mission to provide "quality, modern education," as they suggest that a portion of its scientific output may not be undergoing rigorous, independent validation. The university's strong thematic positioning, particularly its national leadership in Mathematics (ranked 15th), Engineering (18th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (32nd) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of academic excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission and capitalize on these thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university urgently reviews and reinforces its policies on publication venues and citation ethics, ensuring its research impact is both authentic and globally recognized.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.056, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.401. This indicates a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled performance suggests that its collaborative practices are well-governed and less susceptible to "affiliation shopping" dynamics, reflecting a more structured and transparent approach to institutional partnerships than its national peers.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution shows a lower risk profile compared to the national average of 0.228. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the country level. Retractions can be complex, sometimes signifying responsible error correction. In this context, the university's low score indicates that its pre-publication quality controls are likely robust, preventing the kind of systemic failures that a higher rate might suggest and reinforcing a culture of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of 3.920 is not only high but also exceeds the already significant national average of 2.800, representing a global red flag. This finding indicates that the university leads in risk metrics within a country already highly compromised in this area. While some self-citation is natural, such a disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of an 'echo chamber,' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation seriously threatens the credibility of its academic influence, suggesting it may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a critical Z-score of 4.137, starkly higher than the national average of 1.015. This pattern shows a clear accentuation of risk, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. 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 fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.040, which is well below the national average of -0.488. This prudent profile demonstrates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate inflation. The university's low score is a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
With a Z-score of -1.145, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.389. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own leadership. The university's negative score is a strong indicator of sustainability and structural excellence, suggesting that its scientific impact results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not from a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.056 is firmly in the very low-risk category, performing better than the national average of -0.570. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the complete absence of risk signals at the university aligns with a national environment that is already low-risk. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding the risks of coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk, which contrasts significantly with the medium-risk national average of 0.979. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, whereby the university avoids replicating the risk of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and bypass independent peer review. The university's minimal reliance on such channels ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive mechanisms, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 2.224, a medium-risk level that is nonetheless indicative of relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.965. Although risk signals for 'salami slicing' are present, the university operates with more order and control than the national average. This practice, where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. The university's score suggests that while this behavior exists, its governance mechanisms are partially containing a practice that is more critical and widespread at the national level, though it still warrants monitoring.
