| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.900 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
6.577 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.645 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.333 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.304 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
4.923 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.867 | 2.965 |
Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall risk score of 1.701 indicating areas of both exemplary integrity and significant vulnerability. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, suggesting a culture of responsible individual authorship and clear institutional boundaries. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical alerts in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output. These weaknesses point to systemic challenges in publication strategy and quality assurance that could undermine the institution's credibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established recognized thematic strengths in Environmental Science, Energy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. This academic potential is directly threatened by the identified integrity risks; practices such as academic endogamy and publishing in low-quality venues contradict the mission's commitment to "innovative development" and the tradition of excellence. To fully realize its mission and leverage its thematic strengths, the university is advised to undertake a strategic review of its publication and quality control policies, ensuring that its scientific output aligns with the highest standards of international integrity and impact.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.900, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.401. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates often signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score indicates a robust and well-defined affiliation policy, effectively preventing practices like “affiliation shopping” and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with precision and integrity, a standard that sets it apart from the national trend.
With a Z-score of 0.070, the institution's performance is notably more controlled than the national average of 0.228, despite both falling within a medium-risk context. This suggests a differentiated management approach to quality control. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to systemic failures in pre-publication review. In this case, the university appears to moderate the risks that are more common nationally, indicating that its internal supervision and quality assurance mechanisms, while not infallible, are more effective at mitigating potential malpractice or methodological errors than those of its peers.
The institution's Z-score of 6.577 is a global red flag, dramatically exceeding the already high national average of 2.800. This result indicates that the university leads in risk metrics within a country already compromised by this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a critical level of scientific isolation and the formation of an 'echo chamber.' The data strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is being oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by external scrutiny, warning of severe endogamous impact inflation that requires urgent strategic intervention to reconnect its research with the global scientific community.
The university shows a Z-score of 4.645, a figure that significantly amplifies the vulnerabilities present in the national system, which has an average of 1.015. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the institution's due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals indicates that a substantial part of its research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -1.333, well below the national average of -0.488, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency in its authorship practices. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. This indicates that, unlike in disciplines where extensive author lists are common, the university avoids author list inflation. This responsible approach helps maintain individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that authorship reflects genuine contribution rather than 'honorary' or political practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.304 contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.389, showcasing its institutional resilience. This indicates that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic national risk of depending on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is exogenous and not structural. However, the university's low-risk score suggests its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, demonstrating a sustainable and independent model for generating high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.570, reflecting a culture of low-profile consistency and responsible productivity. 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 in this indicator is a positive sign, suggesting an environment free from risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
With a Z-score of 4.923, the institution demonstrates high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.979. This indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to relying on its own publication channels. This excessive dependence raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The high score warns of academic endogamy, where research may bypass independent external peer review, potentially using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation and limiting the global visibility of its output.
The institution's Z-score of 4.867 is a global red flag, positioning it as a leader in this risk metric within a country already facing a significant challenge (national average of 2.965). This critically high value alerts to the widespread practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior severely distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant, coherent new knowledge, demanding immediate and decisive corrective action.
