| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.388 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.810 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.720 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.209 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.145 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.164 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.337 | 2.965 |
Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR) presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.279 reflecting both areas of exceptional scientific governance and significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength in maintaining scientific autonomy and quality control, evidenced by very low-risk indicators in leadership impact, use of institutional journals, and hyper-authorship. These strengths are foundational to its mission. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by critical-level risks in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, which not only mirror but in some cases exceed national trends, suggesting systemic issues that could undermine its "world-class" aspirations. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, TUSUR's strongest thematic areas nationally are Chemistry (ranked 18th), Physics and Astronomy (34th), Computer Science (38th), and Mathematics (45th). To fully align with its mission of being a "driving force for economic development" through "world-class research," it is imperative to address the integrity risks that threaten to devalue its scientific contributions. Fostering a culture that prioritizes novel, externally validated impact over inflated internal metrics will be key to ensuring its long-term reputational and scientific success.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.388, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university shows a greater propensity for this practice. This suggests a high exposure to the factors driving multiple affiliations. While often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university's heightened score compared to its national peers indicates a need to review its affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration rather than metric-driven inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk average of 0.228. This divergence highlights a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing prior to publication. Therefore, the university's low score is a positive signal of effective and responsible supervision, indicating that its pre-publication review processes are robust and help prevent the types of recurring malpractice or methodological flaws that may be more common in its environment.
The institution's Z-score of 2.810 is at a significant risk level, virtually identical to the national average of 2.800. This alignment indicates that the university is fully immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic prevalent across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these disproportionately high rates signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared practice warns of a systemic risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that both the institution's and the nation's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.720 is lower than the national average of 1.015, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the university demonstrates a greater ability to moderate the risks of publishing in problematic journals compared to the national trend. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's more controlled performance indicates that it is exercising better judgment than its peers, thereby reducing its exposure to severe reputational risks and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.209, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile, surpassing the already low-risk national average of -0.488. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the institutional level aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Inappropriate hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute individual accountability. The university's exceptionally low score strongly suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its fields of research, showing no signs of 'honorary' or political authorship and reflecting a culture of high accountability.
The institution shows an exceptionally strong Z-score of -2.145, indicating a very low risk of impact dependency. This stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.389, which signals a medium-level risk. This significant difference demonstrates a preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A wide positive gap suggests that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. TUSUR's negative score indicates the opposite: its prestige is structural and driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership, signaling a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainable, self-generated excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.164 places it in the low-risk category, similar to the national average of -0.570. However, the university's score is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the overall risk is contained, the institution shows more signals of hyperprolific activity than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This slight elevation warrants a review to ensure that productivity remains balanced with quality and that authorship practices uphold the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates at a very low-risk level, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk national trend (Z-score of 0.979). This indicates a clear strategic choice to avoid the risks of academic endogamy. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. By eschewing this practice, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility, ensuring its scientific output is judged by competitive international standards rather than being fast-tracked through internal channels that can be used to inflate CVs.
The institution's Z-score of 3.337 is a global red flag, indicating a significant risk level that not only mirrors but exceeds the already critical national average of 2.965. This suggests the institution is a leader in a highly compromised national system regarding this practice. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's extremely high score points to a systemic issue that distorts the scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge, presenting an urgent threat to its research integrity.
