| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.437 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
10.839 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.123 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.272 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.485 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
5.363 | 2.965 |
Moscow Aviation Institute National Research University (MAI) presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.103 that reflects a notable polarization between areas of excellence and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices, with very low risk in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, and shows a strong capacity for generating independent impact. These strengths align with its mission to cultivate top-level engineering talent. However, this positive performance is contrasted by critical alerts in three key areas: Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output, all of which significantly exceed national averages. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the mission's emphasis on "world's top-level" research, as they suggest that impact and productivity metrics may be artificially inflated, potentially undermining the credibility of its partnerships and its global standing. The university's strong national rankings in areas such as Environmental Science (7th), Psychology (16th), and Energy (19th), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid foundation of recognized academic strength. To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that MAI leverage its robust governance in authorship to implement a strategic review of its publication and citation policies, ensuring that all research practices reflect the highest standards of integrity and external validation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.437, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.401. This indicates a strong capacity for institutional resilience, as the control mechanisms in place appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation management that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate suggests that it successfully avoids practices aimed at strategically inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions for its research output.
With a Z-score of 0.061, the institution's rate of retractions is lower than the national average of 0.228, despite both being in a moderate risk category. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates risks that appear more common across the country. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to systemic vulnerabilities. In this case, the institution's contained level indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning more effectively than the national standard, though continued monitoring is advisable to maintain this positive differential.
The institution presents a Z-score of 10.839, a figure that stands out critically against the national average of 2.800. This result is a global red flag, positioning the center as a leader in this risk metric within a national context that is already highly compromised. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice warns of severe endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, which could undermine the credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 3.123, a significant value that is substantially higher than the national average of 1.015. This pattern indicates that the university is not just reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying the vulnerabilities present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.272, well below the national average of -0.488, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications. This result shows a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard, indicating robust authorship policies. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like "honorary" or political authorship, thereby maintaining high standards of individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.485, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.389. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the center avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact. However, this institution's negative score indicates that the research it leads is just as impactful, if not more so, than its collaborative output. This is a sign of strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, suggesting that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, not dependent on exogenous factors.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.570, indicating a very low prevalence of hyperprolific authors. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this indicator suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.979. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that it does not rely on internal channels as "fast tracks" for publication, thereby upholding competitive validation standards.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 5.363, a critically high value that far exceeds the already significant national average of 2.965. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the center leads risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing." This extremely high value alerts to a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
