Odessa National Maritime University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Odessa National Maritime University demonstrates a robust overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance and intellectual leadership, alongside critical vulnerabilities in publication and citation practices. The institution excels in maintaining low-risk profiles for Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating strong internal controls and a commitment to external validation. A particularly notable strength is the negative gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research, signaling true internal capacity and scientific sustainability. However, these achievements are contrasted by significant-risk alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, which are substantially higher than even the compromised national averages. These indicators suggest systemic issues of academic endogamy and productivity inflation that require immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's primary thematic strengths are concentrated in Engineering (ranked 7th in Ukraine), Social Sciences (18th), Computer Science (29th), and Energy (32nd). As the institution's mission statement was not provided for this analysis, a direct alignment assessment is not possible; however, the identified high-risk practices directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility by potentially distorting the scientific record. To secure its long-term reputation and build upon its clear areas of strength, it is recommended that the University initiate a targeted review of its publication and citation policies to address these integrity risks proactively.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.238, which is well-aligned with the national context where the average Z-score is -0.785. This result indicates a healthy and consistent approach to academic collaboration, free from the risk signals that can appear in environments with higher pressure for institutional ranking. The absence of a significant rate of multiple affiliations suggests that the university's collaborative framework is organic and not driven by strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This low-profile consistency reinforces the integrity of its partnership data and aligns with national standards for transparent research conduct.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.549, the institution shows a higher propensity for this risk indicator compared to the national average of 0.056. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university's elevated score suggests a greater exposure to the underlying factors that can lead to retractions. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national baseline suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This deviation warrants a qualitative verification by management to understand the root causes and reinforce the institutional culture of integrity and methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 10.200, a figure that represents a critical alert, especially when compared to the already significant national average of 4.357. This result positions the university as a global outlier, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a profound risk of scientific isolation and the formation of an 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by endogamous impact inflation rather than genuine recognition from the global community, a practice that undermines the credibility of its research.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates effective risk moderation with a Z-score of 1.632, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. While publishing in such journals is a common medium-level risk in the country, the university's performance indicates a more rigorous process for selecting dissemination channels. This differentiated management suggests that the institution exercises superior due diligence, protecting its research and reputation from being associated with media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. By mitigating this risk more effectively than its peers, the university avoids wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices and safeguards its scientific output.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.131, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authorship, a positive signal that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.684). This alignment demonstrates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, avoiding patterns of author list inflation. The absence of this risk signal indicates that, within the institution, authorship is likely assigned based on meaningful contribution, steering clear of 'honorary' or political practices that can dilute individual responsibility. This reflects a healthy research culture that values genuine collaboration over inflated metrics.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -2.074, a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and leadership, especially when compared to the national average of -0.159. This result signifies that the impact of research led by the university's own authors is substantially higher than its overall collaborative impact. This is a clear sign of sustainability and robust internal capacity, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners. This performance demonstrates that its excellence metrics are driven by genuine intellectual leadership, a key asset for long-term strategic development.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.174 indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where the risk is virtually non-existent (Z-score of -1.115). While the university's risk level is low, it shows early signals of hyperprolific activity that are not present in the rest of the country. This incipient vulnerability warrants a proactive review. 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. Monitoring this trend is crucial to ensure that institutional pressures do not lead to an imbalance between quantity and quality.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-level risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This preventive isolation is a significant strength, demonstrating a clear commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent peer review. This practice ensures its research competes on the global stage and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that could inflate productivity without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 5.771 is a global red flag, indicating a critical level of risk that far exceeds the already significant national average of 2.716. This score suggests that the practice of fragmenting coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity may be systemic. Such a high rate of 'salami slicing' not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This is a severe discrepancy that requires an urgent and deep integrity assessment to address the underlying causes and restore confidence in the institution's research output.