| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.352 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.066 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.918 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.360 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.087 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.812 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.334 | 2.965 |
Novosibirsk State Medical University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.293 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates exemplary governance in several key areas, showing very low risk in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. These results point to robust internal controls and a commitment to transparency. However, these strengths are contrasted by significant alerts in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Redundant Output, which require immediate attention. The university's strong academic standing, particularly its high national rankings in core fields like Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, underscores its potential for excellence. Yet, the identified integrity risks, especially those related to publication quality and originality, could undermine this excellence and the implicit social responsibility of a leading medical institution. A strategic focus on reinforcing pre-publication quality assurance and promoting research practices that prioritize impact over volume will be crucial to align its operational reality with its academic prestige and mission.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.352, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.401. This result indicates a commendable isolation from the risk dynamics prevalent at the national level, suggesting robust internal policies. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the national trend points to a potential for strategic use to inflate institutional credit. The university's extremely low rate, however, suggests it maintains clear and well-governed policies, effectively preventing "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is attributed with precision and integrity.
The university's Z-score for retracted publications is 1.066, significantly higher than the national average of 0.228. This finding suggests that the institution is not only susceptible to the vulnerabilities present in the national system but may be amplifying them. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This pattern points to a potential vulnerability 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.
With a Z-score of 0.918, the institution shows a moderate level of self-citation, but this is notably lower than the critical national average of 2.800. This indicates a degree of relative containment, suggesting that while some risk signals are present, the university operates with more control than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. The university's ability to keep this rate below the country's high-risk threshold suggests it is successfully avoiding the most severe forms of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' thereby mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating a greater reliance on external validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.360 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 1.015, which indicates a medium risk level. This result signifies a successful preventive isolation from a problematic national trend. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university’s near-zero exposure demonstrates robust information literacy and a commitment to channeling its scientific production through reputable media that meet international standards, effectively avoiding reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.087, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.488. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the institution shows early signals of a practice that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's score, though not alarming, signals a need to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and are based on meaningful contributions rather than 'honorary' or political considerations.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.812 in this indicator, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.389. This result points to a high exposure to dependency risk, suggesting the center is more prone to this alert than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential risk to sustainability. The university's score suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capacity or a reliance on external partners.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure well below the already low national average of -0.570. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the university's practices align with a national standard of minimal risk. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's very low score is a positive indicator of a research environment that likely prioritizes scientific rigor and integrity over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.979. This indicates that the institution has effectively isolated itself from a risk dynamic present in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises concerns about conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's minimal reliance on its own journals for publication suggests a strong commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 3.334, a critically high value that surpasses the already compromised national average of 2.965. This constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in risk metrics within a high-risk national context. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value is a serious alert that such practices may be prevalent, distorting the scientific record and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This area requires urgent and decisive intervention.
