| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.374 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.749 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.060 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.560 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.025 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.792 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
4.648 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.119 | 2.965 |
Saint Petersburg State University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a commendable resilience against certain national risk trends but also significant vulnerabilities in areas of academic self-referencing. With an overall score of 0.593, the institution demonstrates robust internal governance in key areas, maintaining low-risk indicators for publication in discontinued journals, hyper-authorship, and hyper-prolificacy, suggesting effective quality controls. However, this is contrasted by critical weaknesses related to academic endogamy, including a significant rate of institutional self-citation that mirrors a national crisis and a high exposure to publishing in its own journals. This mixed profile exists alongside clear academic strengths, with the university holding top-tier national rankings in disciplines such as Computer Science, Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, and Energy, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. These identified risks, particularly those suggesting an 'echo chamber,' directly challenge any institutional mission centered on global excellence and social responsibility, as true scientific leadership requires transparency and validation by the international community. The university is therefore encouraged to leverage its proven governance strengths to address these endogamous practices, ensuring its prestigious academic output is fully aligned with the highest standards of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.374 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.401, indicating that its approach to multiple affiliations reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the Russian Federation's research ecosystem. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration or researcher mobility, this alignment with a medium-risk national context suggests that shared practices may exist. It is important to ensure these practices are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.061, the university's rate of retractions is considerably lower than the national average of 0.228, signaling a differentiated and more effective management of this risk. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are failing systemically. In this case, the institution’s ability to moderate this trend compared to its national peers indicates that its integrity culture and supervisory mechanisms are performing with greater efficacy, better protecting its scientific record from recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of 2.749 is critically high and aligns closely with the national average of 2.800, placing it within a standard crisis dynamic that is widespread in the country. This disproportionately high rate signals a significant risk of scientific isolation and the creation of an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by endogamous dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, a critical threat to its international standing.
The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.060, maintaining a low-risk profile that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 1.015). A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. The university's positive performance suggests its researchers and quality control systems are effective at avoiding dissemination channels that fail to meet international ethical standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices that appear to be a greater challenge nationally.
With a Z-score of -0.560, which is more favorable than the national standard of -0.488, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its authorship practices. This indicates that its processes are managed with rigor, successfully mitigating the risks of author list inflation. By maintaining this low-risk level, the university reinforces a culture of transparency and accountability, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices that can dilute individual responsibility.
The university's Z-score of -0.025 indicates a healthy, low-risk balance, showcasing institutional resilience against the national trend of dependency on external partners for impact (Country Z-score: 0.389). A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is exogenous and not built on its own strengths. This result suggests that Saint Petersburg State University's scientific prestige is structural and derives from genuine internal capacity, reflecting its ability to exercise intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.792, a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors that is notably better than the national average of -0.570. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. This result suggests a healthy research environment that successfully prioritizes scientific quality and integrity over the sheer volume of output, fostering a sustainable and responsible research culture.
With a Z-score of 4.648, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is exceptionally high compared to the national average of 0.979, indicating a high exposure to associated risks. This heavy dependence on in-house journals raises potential conflicts of interest and fosters academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice limits global visibility and may create the perception that internal channels are being used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.119 indicates a medium-risk signal for redundant output; however, this represents a relative containment of a practice that has reached a critical level nationally (Z-score: 2.965). This suggests that while there are instances of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—the university operates with more order and control than its national peers. This management helps mitigate a trend that otherwise distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the peer review system.
