Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.125 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas of authorship and intellectual leadership, particularly in its low rates of hyper-authorship, redundant output, and reliance on institutional journals, effectively acting as a firewall against some prevalent national risks. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized academic excellence in key thematic areas, including its Top 10 national rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, Environmental Science, and Computer Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, these achievements are contrasted by significant risks in publication practices, specifically a high rate of output in discontinued journals and elevated institutional self-citation. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any mission centered on academic excellence and societal contribution is inherently threatened by practices that could compromise reputational integrity or suggest a lack of due diligence. The University is well-positioned to leverage its clear areas of integrity strength to implement targeted policies that mitigate its most pressing risks, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and ensuring the long-term, sustainable impact of its research contributions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score of 0.432 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at -0.785. This suggests the institution displays a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this divergence from the national norm warrants a closer review. The data points to a need to ensure that the observed rate is driven by genuine, strategic collaborations that add value, rather than practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the university's distinct academic identity.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.220, the University shows a higher exposure to retractions compared to the national average of 0.056. Although both scores fall within a medium-risk context, the institution's elevated rate suggests a specific vulnerability. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors; however, a rate significantly above the national baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently here than elsewhere in the country. This alerts to a potential weakness in the institutional integrity culture, indicating that recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous oversight may require immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University exhibits a significant risk level with a Z-score of 3.373, a value that, while high, represents an attenuated alert when compared to the even more critical national average of 4.357. This indicates that while the institution is immersed in a national environment prone to this risk, it maintains slightly more control than its peers. Nevertheless, the high absolute value remains a serious concern. Such a rate can signal the presence of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that a portion of the institution's perceived academic influence may be driven by internal dynamics rather than broad recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.125 is a critical red flag, significantly amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.278. This result constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The data indicates that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and systemic need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.882, the University demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard of -0.684. This low rate indicates that, for the most part, author lists are not being inflated. This serves as a positive signal that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the questionable practice of awarding 'honorary' or political authorships, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

The University's Z-score of -1.426 signals a very low risk, demonstrating a healthy consistency that aligns with the low-risk national standard of -0.159. This excellent result indicates that there is no significant gap between the institution's overall impact and the impact of the research it leads. It suggests that the University's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead structural and driven by its own internal capacity. This points to a sustainable research model where the institution exercises strong intellectual leadership in its collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.183 represents a slight divergence from the national context, which shows a very low-risk score of -1.115. This indicates that the University is beginning to show nascent signals of risk related to hyperprolific authors that are not apparent in the rest of the country. While the current level is low and not yet an alarm, it warrants monitoring. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality, or even the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.154. This very low reliance on its own journals is a significant institutional strength. It signals a clear commitment to seeking independent, external peer review and avoiding the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party for its own research. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, showing that it competes successfully in standard competitive validation channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score of -0.359 is an indicator of exceptional performance, as it functions as an effective filter against a critical risk that is highly prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 2.716). This result demonstrates that the institution acts as a firewall against the practice of 'salami slicing.' The low rate of redundant output suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units. This commitment to substance over volume is a cornerstone of scientific integrity.