| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.287 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.501 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.786 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.886 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.311 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.913 | 2.965 |
Novosibirsk State Technical University demonstrates a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.282 reflecting a balance of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits robust governance in key areas, showing very low risk in the rates of hyperprolific authors and publication in institutional journals. However, these strengths are offset by significant red flags in the rates of institutional self-citation and redundant output, which are not only high but exceed the already elevated national averages. This profile is set against a backdrop of solid academic performance in specific fields, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting particular strength in Psychology (ranked 28th in the Russian Federation), Mathematics (37th), and Computer Science (41st). The institution's mission "to create technological and social practices of new eras of development and educate their leaders" is directly challenged by these integrity risks. A culture that may prioritize internal validation (self-citation) and publication volume (redundant output) over novel contribution could undermine the very leadership and innovation it aims to foster. By decisively addressing these vulnerabilities, the University can ensure its operational practices fully support its strategic vision, leveraging its thematic strengths to achieve genuine and sustainable global leadership.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.287, which is below the national average of 0.401. This indicates a pattern of differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates risks related to affiliation strategies that appear more common across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. In this context, the university's more controlled approach suggests a healthier and more transparent management of institutional partnerships compared to the national trend, reducing the risk of "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.259, in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.228, the institution demonstrates notable resilience. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest that pre-publication quality controls are failing. The university's low score indicates that its integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic errors that appear to be a greater vulnerability for its national peers. This reflects a responsible and effective supervision system.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.501, which is significantly higher than the national average of 2.800. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but leads risk metrics within a national system 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 critical risk of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. The data warns of severe endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.786, which is lower than the national average of 1.015. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that is more prevalent in its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's comparatively better performance suggests it exercises more caution than its national peers, but the medium-risk score still indicates a need to strengthen information literacy and formal policies to prevent researchers from channeling work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thus avoiding reputational damage and wasted resources.
The institution's Z-score of -0.886 is well below the national average of -0.488. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's low score indicates a healthy approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby reinforcing individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.311, which is slightly below the national average of 0.389, the institution shows evidence of differentiated management. It appears to moderate the risk of impact dependency better than the national trend. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The university's score, while in the medium-risk range, suggests it has a slightly better balance between its own intellectual leadership and its role in external collaborations. This invites reflection on how to further strengthen internal capacity to ensure that its scientific prestige is increasingly structural and endogenous, rather than primarily dependent on external partners.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.413, a very low value compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.570. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the institutional level aligns with the generally low-risk standard observed nationally. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's exceptionally low score is a strong positive indicator of a balanced and healthy research environment, where individual productivity remains within credible and sustainable limits, safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.979. This signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy, bypassing independent peer review. The university's minimal reliance on its own journals demonstrates a commitment to external, competitive validation and global visibility, ensuring its scientific production is vetted by the international community and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
With a Z-score of 3.913, the institution's rate of redundant output is critically high and significantly exceeds the national average of 2.965. This is a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in this risk metric within a country already facing a significant challenge. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This extremely high value is an urgent alert that such practices may be systemic, distorting the scientific evidence base and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, which requires immediate and thorough investigation.
