| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.331 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.164 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.132 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.517 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.030 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.684 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.672 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.492 | 2.965 |
St Petersburg Pavlov State Medical University demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational governance that effectively counteract several high-risk trends prevalent within the Russian Federation. With an overall score of 0.122, the institution excels in maintaining very low rates of publication in discontinued or institutional journals and shows a prudent approach to self-citation and author productivity, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and quality. However, this positive outlook is challenged by two critical areas of concern: a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds leadership, and a medium-risk level for redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's thematic strengths are concentrated in medical and health sciences, with top national rankings in Dentistry (5th), Medicine (15th), Psychology (18th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (20th). These areas of excellence are directly linked to its mission of developing high-level medical personnel. Yet, the identified risks, particularly the dependency on external leadership for impact, could undermine the goal of augmenting "moral, cultural and scientific values" with genuine, internally-driven contributions. To fully align its practices with its mission, the University should leverage its robust governance in low-risk areas to develop targeted strategies that foster intellectual leadership and ensure the originality and substance of its scientific output.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.331, contrasting with the national average of 0.401. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as the University's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low rate suggests it effectively avoids the national tendency toward practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clear and transparent academic accounting.
With a Z-score of 0.164, the institution's performance is slightly better than the national average of 0.228. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the University moderates risks that are common in its environment. Retractions are complex events, and while a medium-risk score indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have vulnerabilities, the institution's ability to remain below the national figure is positive. Nevertheless, this signal suggests that a systemic review of pre-publication integrity checks is warranted to prevent recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor from becoming an established pattern.
The institution's Z-score of -0.132 stands in stark contrast to the country's significant-risk score of 2.800. This result indicates that the University functions as an effective filter, acting as a firewall against national risk practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's high average points to a widespread risk of 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation. The University's very low rate is a clear strength, demonstrating that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, ensuring its work receives sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -0.517, a figure that signals preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a Z-score of 1.015. The University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards is more common. This very low score is a critical indicator of robust due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It shows a strong institutional capacity to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices, thereby protecting its reputation and the integrity of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.030 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.488. This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that this pattern is not appearing in other fields as a result of author list inflation. The University should review its authorship practices to ensure they remain transparent and accountable, clearly distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially dilutive 'honorary' attributions.
With a Z-score of 3.684, the institution shows a significant risk that accentuates a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.389). This extremely wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the University's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether the institution's high-impact metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Addressing this dependency is crucial for building a resilient and autonomous research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.672 reflects a prudent profile, as it manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard (-0.570). While high productivity can signify leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's low score indicates it successfully mitigates the risks of imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates preventive isolation from the national context, where the average Z-score is 0.979. This result indicates the University does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, showing a clear preference for standard validation over internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 2.492 indicates a medium risk level, but it also shows relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 2.965. Although risk signals for data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' exist, the center operates with more order than the national average. This practice, which involves dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. The University's score, while better than the national context, still serves as a warning to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
