| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.193 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.267 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.329 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.532 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.051 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.234 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.667 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.255 | 2.965 |
Irkutsk State University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.317 reflecting both significant strengths and areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates commendable control in key areas, particularly its very low rate of publication in institutional journals and prudent management of hyperprolific authorship and multiple affiliations, outperforming national trends. However, a critical vulnerability is evident in its significant rate of institutional self-citation, which exceeds an already high national average. This specific risk, alongside moderate signals in hyper-authorship and retracted output, warrants attention as it could challenge the university's mission to foster "personal responsibility and integrity." These findings are contextualized by the university's strong academic standing in specific fields, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds prominent national positions in Mathematics, Chemistry, and Arts and Humanities. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of advancing knowledge and achieving recognized excellence, the university is encouraged to implement targeted policies addressing self-citation and authorship practices, thereby reinforcing its commitment to robust scientific integrity.
The institution shows a low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.193), demonstrating strong resilience against a trend that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.401). This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks seen elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate indicates a well-governed environment that avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent academic attributions.
The university's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.267) is closely aligned with the national average (Z-score: 0.228), indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern common within the country. This medium level of risk suggests that, like its peers, the institution faces challenges with pre-publication quality control. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a persistent rate at this level suggests that quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically, pointing to a shared vulnerability in the national integrity culture that warrants a review of methodological rigor.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation presents a global red flag, with a Z-score of 3.329 that not only marks a significant risk but also leads the metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area (Z-score: 2.800). This disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation suggests that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a situation that requires urgent strategic intervention.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management regarding publication in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.532 that is notably lower than the national average of 1.015. This indicates that the university is successfully moderating a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By maintaining a lower rate, the university shows a stronger commitment to avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its reputational integrity and ensuring research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in the rate of hyper-authored output, where the university's Z-score of 1.051 indicates a medium risk, contrasting with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.488). This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator's elevation warrants a review to ensure these patterns are justified by the nature of the research. It serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability.
The university exhibits effective and differentiated management of its research impact dependency, with a Z-score of 0.234, which is healthier than the national average of 0.389. This indicates the institution moderates a risk that is more prevalent nationally. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. The university's more contained gap suggests a better balance, reflecting stronger internal capacity and intellectual leadership in its collaborations, which is crucial for building sustainable, long-term scientific prestige.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.667 that indicates a lower risk than the national standard (Z-score: -0.570). This suggests the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score in this area is a positive sign, indicating an environment that likely avoids imbalances between quantity and quality and mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national trends regarding publication in its own journals. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed at the country level (Z-score: 0.979). This indicates the institution does not replicate a potentially problematic practice seen elsewhere. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's minimal reliance on these channels shows a strong commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution achieves relative containment of redundant output, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.255 that is significantly lower than the country's critical Z-score of 2.965. Although some risk signals exist, this shows the university operates with substantially more order than the national average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's ability to keep this practice at a moderate level, while the national context is critical, suggests its internal controls are effectively mitigating a widespread vulnerability, better prioritizing significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
