| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.520 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.399 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.240 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.895 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.310 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.830 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.092 | 2.965 |
Tyumen Industrial University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a notable contrast between areas of exceptional governance and critical vulnerabilities. With an overall risk Z-score of 2.088, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in authorship practices, including very low rates of hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and a strong capacity for generating impact under its own leadership. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by severe risks in its publication strategy, specifically alarming rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals. The university's research excellence is concentrated in key thematic areas, with strong national rankings in Environmental Science, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Energy, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified critical risks directly challenge any institutional mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility, as they undermine the credibility and reliability of its scientific contributions. To secure its long-term reputation, it is recommended that the university leverage its robust internal governance structures to implement urgent and rigorous quality control and due diligence protocols for its publication channels.
The institution exhibits a low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score of -0.520), demonstrating effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks observed at the national level, where this practice is more common (Z-score of 0.401). While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's prudent approach helps avoid signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a clear and transparent attribution of its scientific output.
The institution's rate of retracted output is significantly high (Z-score of 2.399), a figure that amplifies the vulnerabilities present in the national system (Z-score of 0.228). Retractions are complex events, but a Z-score this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, a rate so far above the average alerts to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
While the institution displays a medium-level signal for institutional self-citation (Z-score of 1.240), it operates with more control than the national average, which shows a significant risk level (Z-score of 2.800). A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, the existing signal, though contained relative to the country, still warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny, suggesting a need to ensure its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution presents a critically high rate of publication in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 7.895 that dramatically accentuates the medium-level risk observed nationally (Z-score of 1.015). This constitutes a severe alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score of -1.310), a signal of integrity that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.488). The complete absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and practices of 'honorary' or political authorship, reinforcing transparency and individual accountability in its scientific contributions.
The institution shows a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score of -0.830). This strong performance isolates it from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where a dependency on external partners is more common (Z-score of 0.389). This negative gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, resulting from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise such leadership.
With a very low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows no signs of hyperprolific authorship, a position of integrity that aligns with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.570). This absence of extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It effectively avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The institution maintains a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score of -0.268), a practice that effectively insulates it from the risks of academic endogamy observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.979). By not depending on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This commitment to independent external peer review strengthens its global visibility and the competitive validation of its research.
The institution's rate of redundant output is at a medium level (Z-score of 1.092), but this signal is notably more contained than the significant risk prevalent across the country (Z-score of 2.965). While the score suggests some publications may exhibit recurring bibliographic overlap, indicating potential data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the institution demonstrates better control over this practice than its national peers. Nevertheless, this remains an area for monitoring to ensure that the focus is on publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units.
