| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.536 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
5.840 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.275 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.309 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.221 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.629 | 2.965 |
St Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation (SUAI) presents a scientific integrity profile marked by a clear duality. With an overall score of 0.447, the institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining structural research independence and fostering responsible authorship practices, effectively insulating itself from several national risk trends. Key areas of excellence include a very low reliance on institutional journals, a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and a near-absence of hyper-prolific or hyper-authored outputs. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its mission. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by significant risks in publication and citation patterns, specifically a very high Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and a high Rate of Redundant Output. These practices threaten to create an insular "echo chamber," potentially compromising the credibility of its notable achievements in its strongest thematic areas, which according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data include Computer Science (ranked 49th in the Russian Federation), Mathematics (78th), and Engineering (79th). To fully align its scientific practices with its mission to drive "scientific and technological development" and train "highly qualified and competent specialists," it is recommended that SUAI leverage its robust governance in authorship to urgently review and reform its citation and publication strategies, ensuring its research impact is both authentic and globally recognized.
The institution's Z-score of -0.536 contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.401. This indicates a notable degree of institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. SUAI's low-risk profile suggests that its policies effectively promote transparent and appropriate representation of researcher affiliations, avoiding the reputational risks associated with "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is earned through genuine collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution demonstrates a stronger performance than the national average of 0.228. This suggests a commendable level of institutional resilience, where internal quality controls appear to be more effective than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. SUAI's low score indicates the opposite: a healthy and responsible scientific culture where supervision and methodological rigor are likely prioritized, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or errors that could damage the institution's reputation and signal a vulnerability in its integrity framework.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.840, a figure that marks a global red flag, significantly exceeding the already high national average of 2.800. This result indicates that the university not only participates in but leads the risk metrics within a national context already highly compromised by this practice. While some self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice presents a critical risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.275 is notably higher than the national average of 1.015, indicating a high level of exposure to this particular risk. This suggests the center is more prone than its national peers to channeling its research into questionable publication venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being directed to media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.309, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.488). The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that authorship practices at the institution are well-governed and transparent. When hyper-authorship appears outside of 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate author list inflation that dilutes individual accountability. SUAI's very low score is a positive indicator that its research culture successfully distinguishes between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, reinforcing the integrity of its scholarly contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.221 signifies a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average Z-score is 0.389. This result is a strong indicator of research sustainability and autonomy. A wide positive gap, as seen more broadly in the national context, can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. SUAI's negative score demonstrates the opposite: its scientific prestige is the result of real internal capacity, with its researchers exercising intellectual leadership. This reflects a robust and self-sufficient research model where excellence is homegrown, not borrowed.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is a clear signal of low-profile consistency, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.570. This absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy research environment where quality is not sacrificed for quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. SUAI's very low score indicates a commendable balance, suggesting that its researchers' productivity levels are credible and that the institution is not susceptible to dynamics that prioritize raw metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, as it does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment (country Z-score of 0.979). This is a significant strength. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where research bypasses independent external peer review. By avoiding this practice, SUAI ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, which enhances its global visibility and credibility while mitigating the risk of using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 2.629 represents an attenuated alert; while it is a global outlier in a critical risk area, it shows slightly more control than the national average of 2.965. This indicates that although the university is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic, some internal factors may be moderating the most extreme expressions of this practice. A high value here alerts to the potential fragmentation of coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. While the risk is significant and requires attention, the institution's relative position suggests it is not the primary driver of this problematic national trend.
