Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.586 indicating a need for targeted strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices, evidenced by very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authors and publication in institutional journals. However, these positive areas are offset by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted output and an exceptionally high rate of publication in discontinued journals. These risks directly challenge the university's mission to foster "human and intellectual capital formation" for Russia's sustainable development, as they compromise the quality and reliability of its scientific contributions. While the university holds a strong national position in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 7th nationally) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 10th), the identified integrity issues could undermine its reputation and the long-term impact of this leadership. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its robust governance in authorship to implement urgent and decisive quality control measures in its publication and dissemination strategies.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.188, while the national average is 0.401. Although this indicator reflects a medium risk level common throughout the country, the university demonstrates more effective management and moderation of this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates often signal strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. In this context, Plekhanov University appears to be navigating this shared challenge with greater control, suggesting its internal policies are more successful at containing the risk of artificially boosting its collaborative footprint compared to the broader systemic pattern observed in the Russian Federation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.732, the institution displays a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 0.228. This finding suggests the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is amplifying a systemic vulnerability. A rate of retractions this far above the norm is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This goes beyond isolated incidents of honest error correction and points toward a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 1.696 (medium risk), which demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk score of 2.800. While the institution shows some signals of internal citation preference, it is successfully mitigating the more extreme dynamics prevalent at the national level. Disproportionately high self-citation rates can create 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, leading to endogamous impact inflation. The university's more controlled performance suggests it is operating with more order, largely avoiding the severe scientific isolation that appears to be a more critical issue across the national system.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 5.068, a critical alert that places it at a significant risk level, far exceeding the country's medium-risk average of 1.015. This severe discrepancy indicates the university is amplifying a national vulnerability to a critical degree. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a serious warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and indicating an urgent need for information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.039, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is even more prudent than the country's low-risk average of -0.488. This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. By effectively controlling for hyper-authorship outside of 'Big Science' contexts where it is legitimate, the institution successfully avoids the risks of author list inflation and the dilution of individual accountability. This prudent approach ensures that authorship reflects genuine contribution, reinforcing transparency and responsibility in its collaborative research.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 1.406, while within the medium-risk category, is considerably higher than the national average of 0.389. This indicates a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact, making the university more prone to this risk than its peers. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly reliant on partners, signaling a sustainability risk where excellence metrics could result from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to strengthen the impact of research led internally.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.289 places it in the very low-risk category, a stronger position than the country's low-risk average of -0.570. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an institutional environment where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This result points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality, where institutional norms favor meaningful intellectual contribution over the pursuit of sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in the very low-risk category, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.979). This preventive stance is a clear strength, showing that the university does not replicate the risks of academic endogamy or conflicts of interest that are more common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication and for enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.732 indicates a medium risk, but this represents a state of relative containment compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.965. This suggests that while the university is not immune to this practice, it operates with more order than the national average. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' points to the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's ability to keep this indicator below the critical national threshold suggests its governance mechanisms are partially effective at encouraging the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.