| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.095 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.249 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.538 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.168 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.991 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.755 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.216 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.388 | 2.965 |
St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University demonstrates a robust and well-managed scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.107, which indicates performance superior to the national average. The institution exhibits notable strengths in controlling hyperprolific authorship and avoiding academic endogamy through institutional journals, showcasing a commitment to responsible research practices. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized leadership in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 10), Earth and Planetary Sciences (Top 20), and Computer Science (Top 25), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, elevated risk signals in institutional self-citation and redundant output present a strategic challenge. These practices, if unaddressed, could undermine the university's mission to achieve "global competitiveness" by creating an impression of scientific isolation and prioritizing publication volume over novel contributions. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, ensuring its research not only expands knowledge but also earns global recognition for its integrity and impact.
The institution exhibits a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.095, contrasting with the medium-risk level observed nationally (Z-score 0.401). This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's controlled rate indicates that its policies likely prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring affiliations reflect genuine collaboration and contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.249, the university maintains a low rate of retractions, performing significantly better than the national average, which sits at a medium-risk level (Z-score 0.228). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience and suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. A rate this low, especially in an environment with higher systemic risk, points to a healthy integrity culture and a high degree of methodological rigor, successfully preventing the types of recurring malpractice or error that would otherwise lead to a higher volume of retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 2.538 signals a significant risk in this area, constituting an attenuated alert. While this value is slightly below the critical national average of 2.800, it remains a point of high concern. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, a disproportionately high rate can signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice risks an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience and due diligence with a low-risk Z-score of -0.168, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.015. This indicates that the institution effectively filters out problematic publication venues. Such a low rate suggests that a culture of information literacy is in place, guiding researchers away from channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and prevents the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.991, the institution displays a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.488). This low incidence of hyper-authorship suggests a culture of transparency and accountability in assigning authorship. The data indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science', and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions and individual responsibility is not diluted.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.755, indicating a healthy, low-risk profile and strong institutional resilience against the national trend (Z-score 0.389). This negative score signifies a minimal gap between the institution's overall impact and the impact of research it leads, suggesting that its scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by its own structural capacity. This result points to a sustainable research model where excellence is the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.216 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency and aligning with the low-risk national standard (-0.570). The complete absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. This suggests that the institution is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or credit assignment without real participation, reinforcing a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is valued above the inflation of individual metrics.
With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, as it does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed in its environment (Z-score 0.979). This indicates a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By channeling its output through external, competitive venues, the university ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, which enhances its global visibility and validates its quality, rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 2.388 indicates a medium-level risk, a situation of relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen nationally (2.965). Although the center operates with more order than the national average, this value is an alert that warrants attention. It suggests a potential tendency to fragment coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice of 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
