| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.601 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.484 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.814 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.245 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.291 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.632 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.155 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.459 | 2.965 |
Omsk State Technical University presents a balanced but complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.081. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices related to authorship, retractions, and reliance on institutional journals, often outperforming national averages and indicating robust internal governance. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a critical vulnerability in its citation patterns, with an exceptionally high rate of institutional self-citation that represents a major reputational risk. This is complemented by medium-level risks in redundant publications and the use of discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths lie in Physics and Astronomy, Energy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. The identified risks, particularly the high self-citation rate, directly challenge the university's mission to achieve research "not lower than the world level" and produce "competent, competitive" personnel. Such endogamous practices undermine claims of global excellence and external validation. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its evident strengths in governance to implement targeted strategies that foster broader external engagement and reinforce a culture of impactful, globally recognized scientific contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.601 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.401. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's low-risk profile indicates that its collaborative framework is well-managed, promoting transparency and avoiding practices that could be perceived as “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.484, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics seen in the national environment (Z-score: 0.228). This commendable result suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective and systemic. A rate significantly higher than the average could alert to a vulnerability in the integrity culture; however, the university’s performance indicates a strong commitment to methodological rigor and responsible supervision, protecting its scientific record and reputation.
The university's Z-score of 4.814 for institutional self-citation is a global red flag, as it significantly amplifies the already critical risk level present in the national system (Z-score: 2.800). This exceptionally high rate signals a profound scientific isolation and the potential existence of an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, directly threatening its credibility.
The institution exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 0.245, which reflects differentiated management when compared to the higher national average of 1.015. Although a risk signal is present, the university demonstrates a more moderate engagement with discontinued journals than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in such venues constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's contained risk level suggests a greater, though not yet complete, capacity to avoid channeling resources into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby mitigating severe reputational damage.
With a Z-score of -1.291, the institution shows a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.488. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This indicates that authorship practices within the institution are appropriate for its disciplines, successfully avoiding the risk of author list inflation that can dilute individual accountability and obscure meaningful contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.632 indicates a low-risk profile, demonstrating institutional resilience against the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.389). A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk where an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. This university's low score suggests that its scientific prestige is structural and built on genuine internal capacity, reflecting a healthy balance where its collaborations do not overshadow its own leadership and innovation.
The university's Z-score of -1.155 is very low, indicating a more rigorous standard than the already low-risk national average of -0.570. This low-profile consistency points to a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's very low rate suggests it effectively avoids risks such as coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution maintains a very low Z-score of -0.268, marking a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.979. This indicates a strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. By doing so, the university effectively mitigates the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy associated with institutional journals, ensuring its scientific output is validated competitively on a global stage and not through internal 'fast tracks' that could inflate publication counts without standard scrutiny.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 1.459, the institution demonstrates relative containment compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.965. This suggests that while signals of 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications—are present, the university operates with more control than the national norm. This moderated risk level indicates a better, though still imperfect, handle on practices that can artificially inflate productivity, distort scientific evidence, and overburden the peer-review system.
