| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.706 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.089 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.124 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.326 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.295 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.358 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
32.173 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 2.965 |
Stavropol State Medical University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 3.046 indicating areas that require strategic attention. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining robust internal governance, particularly in its very low rates of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, effectively insulating itself from contrary national trends. These strengths support its notable academic positioning, evidenced by its high national rankings in Dentistry (6th) and Medicine (29th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is critically undermined by a significant risk in the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, which suggests a high degree of academic endogamy. This, along with medium-level risks in self-citation and impact dependency, poses a direct challenge to the universal academic mission of achieving excellence through transparent, externally validated research. To secure its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, the university is advised to urgently review its publication policies, particularly concerning its own journals, to ensure they align with global standards of scientific integrity and open competition.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.706, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk environment of the Russian Federation (0.401). This suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the university’s internal policies and academic culture do not replicate the risk dynamics observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution’s low value indicates it successfully avoids the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining clear and transparent attributions of its scientific output.
With a Z-score of 0.089, the university's rate of retracted output is situated at a medium-risk level, yet it demonstrates more effective management compared to the national average (0.228). This indicates that while the institution is not immune to the factors leading to retractions, its quality control mechanisms appear to moderate this risk better than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a persistent medium-level signal suggests that pre-publication review processes could be further strengthened to prevent systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity before they escalate.
The university exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 2.124 in institutional self-citation, a figure that indicates relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.800. Although a risk signal is present, the institution operates with more external validation than the national trend, suggesting it is less prone to the formation of insular "echo chambers." Nonetheless, this rate warrants attention, as it may still point to a degree of endogamous impact inflation where academic influence is partially sustained by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows strong institutional resilience against publishing in discontinued journals, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.326, which is significantly healthier than the medium-risk national score of 1.015. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms or researcher training programs are effective filters, mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This proactive stance protects the institution from the severe reputational damage associated with channeling research into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality outlets.
The university's rate of hyper-authored output registers a Z-score of 0.295, a medium-risk level that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.488). This finding suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to factors that can lead to inflated author lists. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, this pattern can signal a dilution of individual accountability. It serves as an alert to review authorship practices to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially inappropriate "honorary" attributions.
The institution shows high exposure to sustainability risks related to its scientific impact, with a Z-score of 2.358 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.389, despite both being in the medium-risk category. This wide positive gap indicates that the university's overall citation impact is heavily dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This pattern, far more pronounced here than in the rest of the country, suggests that its scientific prestige may be largely exogenous and not yet reflective of a structural, self-sustaining research capacity.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is very low, aligning with the low-risk national standard (-0.570). This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area. The data suggests a healthy institutional environment where the focus is on the quality and integrity of the scientific record rather than on extreme individual publication volumes, which can often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may be linked to coercive or honorary authorship practices.
The university's rate of publication in its own institutional journals presents a critical integrity risk, with a Z-score of 32.173 that dramatically exceeds the national average of 0.979. This result indicates that the institution is not only participating in a national vulnerability but is significantly amplifying it. Such an extreme dependence on in-house journals raises serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest, where the institution acts as both judge and party in the validation of its research. This practice fosters academic endogamy, creating a risk that a substantial portion of scientific output may be bypassing rigorous, independent external peer review and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable environmental disconnection regarding redundant output, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186 in a national context characterized by a significant-risk score of 2.965. This stark difference highlights the effectiveness of the university's internal governance in upholding scientific integrity. The absence of signals for "salami slicing" indicates a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity by fragmenting data into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts the scientific record.
