| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.412 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.426 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.339 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.740 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.291 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.117 | 2.965 |
Moscow State Pedagogical University presents a balanced profile with an overall integrity score of 0.368, indicating a solid foundation but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates remarkable strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship and publication in its own journals, and effectively insulates itself from the high national rates of institutional self-citation and retracted output. However, vulnerabilities are apparent in its higher-than-average exposure to multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are concentrated in Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Social Sciences, which aligns perfectly with its mission to restore national pedagogical education and form the professional identity of future teachers. To fully realize this mission of ensuring "culture development" and "professionalism," it is crucial to address the identified risks, as practices like publishing in low-quality journals or depending on external leadership for impact could undermine its reputation for excellence and its goal of fostering an open, innovative educational environment. By focusing on strengthening publication channel selection and fostering internal research leadership, the university can fortify its scientific integrity and enhance its role as a national leader.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.412, while the national average is 0.401. This suggests that the university is more prone to this particular risk factor than its national peers, reflecting a pattern that is more pronounced internally. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that should be monitored to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive contributions.
The institution's Z-score is -0.118, contrasting with a national average of 0.228. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
With a Z-score of -0.426 against a critical national average of 2.800, the institution effectively acts as a firewall against a widespread national practice. This strong performance indicates that the university has successfully avoided the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. By maintaining a low rate of institutional self-citation, the university ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, demonstrating a commitment to external scrutiny and genuine impact.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.339, which is higher than the national average of 1.015. This reveals a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the university is more susceptible than its peers to channeling research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be appearing in 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.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.740, which is below the national average of -0.488. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of hyper-authored output indicates a healthy approach to collaboration, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale projects and practices like "honorary" authorship, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research.
The institution's Z-score is 2.291, markedly higher than the national average of 0.389. This high exposure to risk signals a potential dependency on external partners for generating research impact. A wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of -0.570, the institution demonstrates a low-profile consistency in this area. The complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This very low rate of hyperprolific authors indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and instead prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.979. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution has a Z-score of 2.117, which, while indicating a medium risk, shows relative containment compared to the critical national average of 2.965. Although signals of redundant publication exist, the university operates with more order than the national trend. This value still serves as an alert for the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Such "salami slicing" can distort the scientific evidence base, and continued monitoring is advisable to ensure that research prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.
