| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.250 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.499 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.090 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.201 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.294 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.184 | 2.965 |
The overall integrity score of 0.213 indicates a generally solid foundation of scientific practice at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia. The institution demonstrates notable strengths and effective risk management in several key areas, particularly in maintaining very low rates of hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals, often outperforming national trends. This robust internal governance is reflected in the University's strong national standing in core thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Psychology (11th), Arts and Humanities (24th), and Social Sciences (28th). However, this profile of excellence is challenged by significant vulnerabilities in institutional self-citation and a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals. These practices, if left unaddressed, could undermine the University's mission to provide the national education system with credible, externally validated knowledge. Fostering a culture of broad scholarly engagement and rigorous channel selection is crucial to ensure that the training of future educators is built upon a bedrock of unquestionable scientific integrity. By leveraging its clear strengths in authorship and governance, the University is well-positioned to mitigate these risks and fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.250, significantly below the national average of 0.401, the University demonstrates effective control over affiliation practices. This suggests a strong institutional resilience, where internal mechanisms successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the University’s low rate indicates that it is not exposed to the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" intended to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby ensuring a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative contributions.
The University's Z-score for retracted publications is -0.071, a low value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.228. This indicates institutional resilience, suggesting that the University's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are more robust than the national standard, effectively filtering out potential issues. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in research integrity or methodological rigor. The University's performance in this area points to a healthy integrity culture where such vulnerabilities are successfully managed, protecting its scientific record and reputation.
The University exhibits a Z-score of 3.499 for institutional self-citation, a critical value that not only falls into the significant risk category but also exceeds the already high national average of 2.800. This metric constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the institution leads in this risk indicator within a national context that is already highly compromised. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This practice presents a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the University's academic influence could be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, a situation requiring urgent strategic review.
The University’s Z-score of 1.090 for publications in discontinued journals is closely aligned with the national average of 1.015, placing both in the medium-risk category. This reflects a systemic pattern, but the University's slightly higher score suggests a high exposure, making it more prone to this risk than its peers. A significant presence in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This indicator warns that a portion of the University's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.201, the University maintains a very low-risk profile for hyper-authored publications, well below the national low-risk average of -0.488. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. This performance indicates that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully avoiding the risk of author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This reinforces the integrity of individual contributions and ensures that credit is assigned appropriately, reflecting genuine collaborative work.
The University's Z-score of -0.294 for this indicator is in the low-risk range, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.389. This result points to strong institutional resilience, as the University avoids the dependency on external partners for impact that is more common nationally. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is exogenous and not structural. The University’s balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is the result of genuine internal capacity and that it exercises intellectual leadership within its collaborations, ensuring its impact is both authentic and sustainable.
The University's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.570. This reflects a low-profile consistency, with the institution showing a complete absence of risk signals in an area where some national activity is present. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing'. The University's excellent result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record by avoiding practices that prioritize metrics over substance.
With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the University stands in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.979. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the high-risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and limits global visibility. The University’s low reliance on its own journals shows a commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its research is validated competitively and strengthening its international standing.
The University's Z-score for redundant output is 2.184, a medium-risk value that is nonetheless notably lower than the country's significant-risk average of 2.965. This indicates a degree of relative containment; although risk signals are present, the institution operates with more control than the national average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While the University shows some vulnerability here, its ability to moderate this trend compared to its peers suggests that its internal standards are helping to contain a practice that can otherwise distort the scientific record.
