| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.338 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.233 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.449 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.598 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.014 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.048 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.040 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.234 | 2.965 |
Novosibirsk State University demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.043. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication quality, with very low rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, effectively insulating it from negative national trends. While the university successfully mitigates systemic risks in areas like institutional self-citation and redundant output, operating with more order than the national average, it faces a critical challenge with a significantly high rate of hyper-authored publications, which stands as a severe discrepancy from the national norm. This key vulnerability, alongside medium-risk signals in the impact dependency gap and redundant publications, requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these integrity metrics support a strong research portfolio, with national leadership in key thematic areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 2nd in the Russian Federation), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (4th), and Environmental Science (5th). As the institution's mission statement was not available for this analysis, it is recommended that these findings be aligned with its core values. Practices that suggest a dilution of authorship or impact dependency could undermine a commitment to academic excellence and transparent contribution. By addressing the identified vulnerabilities, particularly in authorship practices, Novosibirsk State University can further solidify its position as a national leader with an unimpeachable commitment to scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.338, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.401. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university appears to have control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the national context shows a moderate tendency towards patterns that could signal "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. Novosibirsk State University’s low score suggests its policies effectively ensure that co-authorships reflect genuine partnerships, maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the national environment, which registers a medium-risk score of 0.228. This significant positive gap indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The institution's excellent result points to the opposite: its supervisory and methodological review processes are robust, effectively preventing recurring malpractice or a lack of rigor and reinforcing a strong culture of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.233 indicates a medium level of risk, but this represents a case of relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk score of 2.800. Although signals of internal citation patterns exist, the university operates with more order than the national average. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can create 'echo chambers' that inflate impact without external validation. The university successfully moderates this risk, suggesting a healthier balance between building on its own research lines and engaging with the global scientific community for scrutiny and recognition.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.449, a very low-risk value that signifies a state of preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score: 1.015). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed 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 exemplary score demonstrates that its researchers exercise strong judgment, avoiding predatory or low-quality venues and thereby protecting the institution's reputation and research investment from practices that appear more common nationally.
With a Z-score of 1.598, the institution exhibits a significant risk level, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.488. This atypical risk activity is an outlier and requires a deep integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high score outside those contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This finding is the most critical in the report, signaling an urgent need to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise the integrity of the institution's research record.
The institution's Z-score of 1.014 is in the medium-risk category and indicates high exposure to this risk factor, as it is notably higher than the national average of 0.389. This gap measures the difference between the impact of all institutional output and the impact of work where the institution holds a leadership role. A high value suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships.
The institution's Z-score of -0.048 is within the low-risk band, but it points to an incipient vulnerability as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.570. While the overall risk is low, this subtle difference suggests the university is the first to show signals in an otherwise inert environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator, though not alarming, warrants proactive review to ensure that high productivity is a result of exceptional work capacity and not a symptom of imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.040, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.979). This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effective in mitigating a risk that is more prevalent in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's low score signals a strong commitment to global validation standards, enhancing the visibility and credibility of its research by favoring external dissemination channels.
The institution has a Z-score of 2.234, which falls into the medium-risk category. This represents a state of relative containment, as it is notably lower than the country's significant-risk score of 2.965. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing.' While the university shows some exposure to this risk, it operates with more control than the national average. This suggests that while instances of data fragmentation may occur, they are less systemic than in the broader environment, though it remains an area where further strengthening of publication ethics would be beneficial.
