| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.208 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.523 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.176 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.423 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.708 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.599 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
5.212 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.916 | 2.965 |
Tomsk State University demonstrates a strong overall performance with a score of 0.956, reflecting a solid foundation in scientific integrity. The institution shows notable strengths in managing its publication quality, with low rates of retracted output and publication in discontinued journals, outperforming national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a significant rate of publication in its own institutional journals, which poses a risk of academic endogamy, and a higher-than-average exposure to risks associated with multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authorship. These integrity metrics are crucial in the context of the University's recognized leadership in key disciplines, including its national Top 10 rankings in Mathematics and Psychology, and strong Top 15 positions in Arts and Humanities and Computer Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of fostering "independent scientific accomplishments" and enhancing its "international scientific and educational" status, it is vital to address these vulnerabilities. Strengthening external validation mechanisms and promoting a culture of quality over quantity will ensure that the University's impressive thematic strengths are built upon a transparent and globally recognized foundation of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.208 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.401, indicating a greater propensity for this risk factor compared to its peers. This suggests a high exposure to practices that, while sometimes legitimate as a result of researcher mobility or partnerships, can also signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University should review its affiliation policies to ensure that the high rate reflects genuine, substantive collaborations rather than "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the perceived value of its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the University demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.228, which indicates a medium risk level. This suggests strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This low rate is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust quality control prior to publication, reflecting a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents recurring malpractice or methodological failures.
The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.523, which, while indicating a medium risk level, shows relative containment compared to the significant national risk level of 2.800. This suggests that although signals of this risk exist, the institution operates with more control than the national average. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, but the current value warrants attention to avoid creating 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. By managing this better than its peers, the University is better positioned to prevent endogamous impact inflation and ensure its academic influence is recognized by the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.176 is well below the national average of 1.015, indicating a low-risk profile in a country where this is a more common issue. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that the University's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication venues. This proactive approach protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, effectively avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 0.423, the University shows a moderate risk level for hyper-authored output, deviating from the low-risk national profile (-0.488). This suggests a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal warrants a review to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The University's Z-score of 1.708 is notably higher than the national average of 0.389, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.599 indicates a moderate risk level, which represents a deviation from the low-risk national context (-0.570). This suggests the University is more sensitive than its peers to the presence of hyperprolific authors. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.
The University's Z-score of 5.212 is at a significant risk level and is drastically higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.979. This indicates that the institution is not just following a national trend but is actively amplifying this specific vulnerability. While in-house journals can be valuable for training, such an excessive dependence on them raises serious conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice risks creating academic endogamy where production bypasses independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and serving as a 'fast track' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation. This is a critical area requiring immediate review.
With a Z-score of 1.916, the University exhibits a medium risk for redundant output, but this demonstrates relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen across the country (2.965). This suggests that while the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity exists, the institution manages it with more control than its national peers. Nevertheless, this value serves as a warning against 'salami slicing,' a practice that distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
