| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.092 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.183 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.756 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.245 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.180 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.033 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.001 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.895 | 2.965 |
St Petersburg State Marine Technical University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exemplary control alongside significant vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.379, the institution demonstrates robust governance in preventing hyperprolific authorship and academic endogamy, reflecting a solid foundation in research ethics. However, this is contrasted by a critical-level risk in redundant output and medium-level alerts across a majority of indicators, including self-citation and multiple affiliations. These challenges require strategic attention, as they could undermine the University's mission to "advance knowledge and... best serve the country and technical progress." The institution's recognized academic strengths, particularly its Top 5 national ranking in Earth and Planetary Sciences and notable positions in Engineering and Physics and Astronomy, provide a platform of excellence. To protect this reputation, it is crucial to align its research practices with its mission, ensuring that the pursuit of technical progress is built on a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity. By leveraging its strengths to mitigate identified risks, the University can reinforce its leadership and ensure its contributions are both impactful and credible.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.092, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. This suggests that while operating within a national context where multiple affiliations are a common practice, the University is more exposed to the associated risks than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The University's heightened exposure in this area warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and contribute genuinely to its research ecosystem, rather than serving primarily as a tool for metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of 0.183, the institution's rate of retractions is closely aligned with the national average of 0.228. This alignment indicates that the University is part of a systemic pattern, reflecting shared challenges in pre-publication quality control at a national level. Retractions are complex events, and some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors. However, a sustained medium rate suggests that quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This shared vulnerability points to a need for enhanced institutional oversight to ensure methodological rigor and prevent recurring malpractice, thereby strengthening the integrity of its scientific output.
The University exhibits a Z-score of 1.756 in institutional self-citation, a figure that, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates relative containment compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.800. This suggests that although the institution is not immune to practices that can lead to 'echo chambers,' its internal control mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. Nevertheless, the existing risk level warns of potential endogamous impact inflation. The University's ability to operate with more order than its environment is a strength, but continued monitoring is necessary to ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community, not just internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.245 is considerably lower than the national average of 1.015, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a differentiated and more effective management of publication channels. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it exposes an institution to severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices. By moderating a risk that appears more common in the country, the University shows a greater commitment to selecting reputable dissemination channels, thereby better safeguarding its research investment and reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.180, the institution presents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.488. This indicates that the University shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to hyper-authorship than its national peers. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, a high rate can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal suggests a need to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices to maintain clarity and fairness in credit attribution.
The institution's Z-score of 1.033 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.389, indicating high exposure to impact dependency. This suggests that while the University's overall impact may be strong, a substantial portion of this prestige is reliant on external partners where it does not hold intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations, highlighting a need to foster and promote research where its own scholars take the lead.
The University demonstrates an exceptionally strong profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.001, placing it in the very low-risk category and well below the country's low-risk average of -0.570. This low-profile consistency indicates that the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The institution's excellent result here signals a healthy research environment where productivity is balanced with scientific rigor and integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk of publishing in its own journals, marking a case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamic observed nationally (Z-score of 0.979). This is a significant strength, as excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. By not replicating the risk dynamics of its environment, the University demonstrates a clear commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed against international standards.
The institution's Z-score of 2.895 is at a significant-risk level, closely mirroring the country's critical average of 2.965. This indicates that the University is immersed in a generalized and standard crisis dynamic prevalent at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This shared critical vulnerability distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. It represents the most urgent integrity challenge for the institution, requiring immediate action to promote the publication of complete, significant studies over sheer volume.
