| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.688 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
5.407 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.625 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.531 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.250 | 2.965 |
Samara State University of Economics demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.206. The institution exhibits exceptional control over multiple potential risk vectors, including multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and output in institutional journals, where it significantly outperforms national averages. However, this strong performance is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in two key areas: an exceptionally high rate of institutional self-citation and a significant volume of publications in discontinued journals. Thematically, the university shows notable positioning in Computer Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Engineering according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks of academic endogamy and questionable publication channels directly challenge the core principles of scholarly excellence and social responsibility. A focused strategic intervention to address these two areas would be highly beneficial, leveraging the institution's otherwise solid integrity framework to secure its long-term academic reputation.
The institution shows a very low risk level (Z-score: -1.688) compared to the medium risk observed nationally (Z-score: 0.401), suggesting a clear institutional policy or culture that avoids the risk dynamics seen elsewhere in the country. The institution effectively isolates itself from the national trend where higher rates of multiple affiliations can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This controlled approach indicates a strong focus on clear and unambiguous attribution of research output.
With a low Z-score of -0.146, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against the moderate risk of retractions present at the national level (Z-score: 0.228). This suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent in its environment. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, a controlled rate like this indicates that pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the kind of systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity that would lead to a higher retraction rate.
The institution presents a critical alert with an extremely high Z-score of 5.407, significantly surpassing the already high national average of 2.800. This positions the university as a leader in risk within a country already facing challenges in this area. While some self-citation is natural, this disproportionate rate signals a profound scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's perceived academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community, requiring urgent review.
The institution's significant Z-score of 2.625 for publications in discontinued journals indicates it is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 1.015). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This high score suggests a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and points to an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication outlets.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.401), which is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.488). This absence of risk signals indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic author list inflation. This suggests a healthy culture of accountability and transparency in assigning authorship credit.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -2.531, indicating a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This stands in stark contrast to the national trend (Z-score: 0.389), where a wider gap suggests a greater dependency on external partners for impact. The university's result demonstrates that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external collaborators but is instead built on strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, signaling a sustainable and structurally sound research model.
With a very low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows no signs of risk related to hyperprolific authors, a result that is even more conservative than the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.570). This indicates a well-balanced academic environment where productivity is not pursued at the expense of quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive or honorary authorship, and that it successfully fosters a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over purely quantitative metrics.
The institution's very low Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals demonstrates a clear separation from the national tendency towards this practice (Z-score: 0.979). This result suggests the university actively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By not relying excessively on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive mechanisms rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's low Z-score of -0.250 for redundant output serves as a powerful testament to its integrity policies, acting as an effective firewall against a practice that is a significant risk nationally (Z-score: 2.965). This indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the artificial fragmentation of studies to inflate publication counts. This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies rather than minimal publishable units strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume.
