| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.104 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.401 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.800 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.019 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.549 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.512 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.113 | 2.965 |
Kemerovo State University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.062 that indicates performance aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for critical indicators such as retracted output, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, often acting as an effective filter against more pronounced risk trends observed at the national level. Key areas for strategic attention include a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, which, despite being better controlled than the national average, warrant review to ensure long-term reputational security. These strong integrity foundations provide a solid platform for the university's academic strengths, particularly in areas where it holds a prominent national position according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Agricultural and Biological Sciences; and Chemistry. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility is inherently tied to research integrity. The identified medium-risk areas could challenge this commitment by creating perceptions of academic insularity or a lack of diligence. Therefore, a proactive approach to reinforcing best practices in these specific areas will not only mitigate risk but also enhance the credibility and global impact of the university's excellent research.
The institution demonstrates a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.104, contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.401. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation misuse that are more prevalent nationally. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this favorable score indicates that the university effectively avoids practices aimed at strategically inflating institutional credit, maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution exhibits a very low rate of retracted publications, a stark contrast to the national medium-risk score of 0.228. This signals a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in the broader environment. Such a low rate is a strong indicator of robust pre-publication quality control and a healthy culture of integrity. It suggests that, unlike the national trend, the university's systemic checks are effective in preventing the types of methodological flaws or malpractice that often lead to retractions, thereby safeguarding its scientific record and reputation.
The university's Z-score of 1.401 places it in the medium-risk category, a signal that warrants attention. However, this is situated within a national context of significant risk (Z-score: 2.800), indicating a degree of relative containment. Although the institution shows some tendency towards creating 'echo chambers' that could inflate its impact through internal validation, it operates with more control than the national average. This pattern suggests a need to encourage broader external engagement to ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community, mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
Both the institution (Z-score: 0.800) and the country (Z-score: 1.015) register a medium risk level for this indicator. Nevertheless, the university's lower score points to a differentiated management approach that moderates a risk common in its environment. This suggests that while facing similar challenges, the institution exercises comparatively better due diligence in selecting publication venues. A continued focus on enhancing information literacy is crucial to further reduce the channeling of research through media that fail to meet international standards, thereby protecting the university from severe reputational harm and wasted resources.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.019, which is more favorable than the national low-risk average of -0.488. This indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a well-calibrated approach to collaboration, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale scientific projects and practices like honorary authorship that can dilute individual accountability. This responsible management of authorship contributes to the transparency and integrity of its research output.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.549, the institution shows institutional resilience against the national trend of a medium-risk gap (Z-score: 0.389). This score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is largely structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. The healthy balance between the impact of its overall output and its leader-authored output suggests a sustainable model of research excellence, built on genuine internal capacity and avoiding the risks of an exogenous and dependent impact profile.
The institution's Z-score of -0.512 is within the low-risk band, closely aligned with the national average of -0.570. However, its slightly higher value suggests an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is low, this subtle signal warrants a proactive review to ensure that institutional pressures do not inadvertently encourage imbalances between quantity and quality. It is an opportunity to reinforce policies that prevent potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thus preserving the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates exceptional performance with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, positioning it in preventive isolation from the country's medium-risk average of 0.979. This result highlights a strong commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks' that can compromise rigor.
The institution acts as an effective filter against a critical national trend, posting a low-risk Z-score of -0.113 while the country average is at a significant-risk level of 2.965. This stark difference indicates that the university's culture and policies serve as a firewall against the practice of 'salami slicing.' By discouraging the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units, the institution promotes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby protecting the integrity of scientific evidence and the efficiency of the peer-review system.
