| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.164 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.669 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.070 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.016 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.005 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.027 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.704 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
5.381 | 2.965 |
Bauman Moscow State Technical University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.078 indicating areas of notable strength alongside significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable control over authorship practices and publication quality, with very low risk in hyperprolific authorship and a resilient posture against retractions and multiple affiliation misuse. However, this operational diligence is overshadowed by critical challenges in citation and dissemination practices. Alarming rates of institutional self-citation, redundant output (salami slicing), and publication in discontinued journals suggest systemic issues that could undermine the institution's credibility. These risks stand in stark contrast to the university's strong academic reputation, evidenced by its high national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas such as Physics and Astronomy (4th), Chemistry (8th), Engineering (10th), and Mathematics (11th). While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, such high-risk behaviors fundamentally conflict with the universal academic principles of excellence, transparency, and social responsibility. To protect its prestigious standing, it is imperative that the university addresses these integrity gaps, ensuring its research practices fully align with the quality of its scientific contributions.
The institution exhibits a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.164, contrasting favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.401. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data indicates a well-managed process that avoids the potential pitfalls of strategic "affiliation shopping" or artificial inflation of institutional credit, demonstrating a more rigorous approach than its national peers.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution maintains a low-risk standing, which is notably better than the country's medium-risk average of 0.228. This disparity points to strong institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. The low rate of retractions indicates a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent at the national level, showcasing a commitment to responsible scientific supervision.
This indicator presents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score of 4.669 far exceeding the already significant national average of 2.800. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but actively leads a high-risk practice within a compromised national environment. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of functioning as a scientific "echo chamber," where work is validated internally rather than by the broader academic community. This pattern of endogamous impact inflation suggests the institution's perceived influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics, threatening its external credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 3.070 is a significant risk indicator that sharply accentuates the vulnerabilities present in the national system (Z-score: 1.015). This high value constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied to selecting publication venues. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality publishing.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.016, which is significantly lower than the national low-risk average of -0.488. This indicates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a healthy culture that effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation or the inclusion of "honorary" authorships, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research endeavors.
With a Z-score of 1.005, the institution shows a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national medium-risk average of 0.389. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, relying on external partners for impact rather than on its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal strength or a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.027 places it in the very low-risk category, a stronger position than the country's low-risk average of -0.570. This demonstrates a consistent, low-profile approach where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that the institution effectively discourages practices that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 1.704 indicates a high exposure to this risk, exceeding the national medium-risk average of 0.979. This elevated dependence on its own journals raises potential conflict-of-interest concerns and warns of a risk of academic endogamy. The data suggests that a notable portion of its scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially using internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts. This practice could limit the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
This indicator is a major concern, as the institution's Z-score of 5.381 is exceptionally high, dramatically surpassing the already critical national average of 2.965. This result constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader of this problematic practice within a highly compromised national context. The massive and recurring bibliographic overlap detected is a strong alert for the systemic practice of "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior severely distorts the scientific evidence base and prioritizes volume over the creation of significant new knowledge.
