National University of Civil Defense of Ukraine

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Civil Defense of Ukraine presents a mixed integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.476 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas of governance, showing very low risk in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, Rate of Multiple Affiliations, and a favorable Gap between its total and leadership-driven impact. These results suggest robust internal policies that promote organic growth and ethical authorship. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant alerts in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, which require immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are most prominent in Engineering, Mathematics, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it holds competitive national rankings. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those suggesting a focus on metric inflation over genuine contribution—are fundamentally at odds with the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. By leveraging its clear governance strengths to address these critical vulnerabilities, the university can safeguard its reputation and ensure its thematic leadership is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.729, significantly lower than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk approach to academic collaboration that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university's affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's low rate confirms it is not engaging in practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution shows a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing. In this case, the university's low score indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, protecting it from the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can damage an institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 10.593 is a critical red flag, drastically exceeding the already significant national average of 4.357. This value positions the university as a leader in this high-risk metric within a country already facing challenges in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a profound scientific isolation and the presence of an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence is dangerously oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.604, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university is actively moderating a risk that appears to be more common across the country. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational damage by associating its research with media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. The university's relative control in this area is positive, but the existing risk level still indicates a need to enhance information literacy among researchers to ensure resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality dissemination channels.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

A Z-score of 1.519 places the institution at a significant risk level, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.684. This atypical risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a high score outside these contexts can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. For the university, this signal is an urgent call to investigate its authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorship, which undermines the credibility of its research contributions.

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

The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -3.273, a figure that is substantially healthier than the national average of -0.159. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard and points to a sustainable research model. A wide positive gap in this indicator often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's excellent score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structural and built upon strong internal capacity, demonstrating that its impact is a direct result of research where it exercises clear intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete operational silence in this risk category, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.115. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's score confirms it effectively avoids these dynamics, fostering a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the potentially problematic publishing dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The university's minimal reliance on its own journals for publication ensures its research is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.368 indicates a medium risk, but this figure shows relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. Although risk signals are present, the university appears to operate with more control than the national trend. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The university's score, while not ideal, suggests it is less prone to this practice than its national peers, though it remains an area that warrants monitoring to ensure research contributions are consistently significant and novel.