Ivan Franko National University of Lviv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ivan Franko National University of Lviv presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in authorship and publication ethics but challenged by practices related to citation patterns and research impact dependency. With an overall risk score of 0.399, the institution demonstrates a robust control over individual researcher conduct, particularly in avoiding hyperprolific authorship and the use of institutional journals, areas where it outperforms national trends. These strengths are foundational. However, significant risks in institutional self-citation and a notable gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research require strategic attention. These vulnerabilities could undermine the University's mission to "generate changes of which a region, a country, the world is in need," as they suggest a degree of scientific insularity. The institution's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its top national rankings in SCImago Institutions Rankings data for Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (Top 3), Arts and Humanities (Top 5), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 5), provides a solid platform for addressing these issues. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of setting "educational and scientific standards," the University should leverage its strong governance in authorship to foster a culture of broader, externally validated impact, thereby ensuring its long-standing traditions translate into modern, globally recognized innovation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.173, slightly higher than the national average of -0.785. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, as the University shows minor signals of risk activity that are less pronounced at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Monitoring this indicator is advisable to prevent it from escalating and to maintain transparency in collaborative attributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.056, which falls into a medium-risk category. This suggests that the University's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions, far from indicating a lack of activity, points to a healthy scientific culture where pre-publication methodological rigor and integrity checks are robust, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for this indicator is 4.015, which, while high, is slightly below the critical national average of 4.357. This constitutes an attenuated alert; the institution is a global outlier in this practice but shows more control than the national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a significant risk of an 'echo chamber,' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern of endogamous impact inflation suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a critical point for strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.291 is considerably lower than the national average of 2.278, indicating a differentiated management approach. The University successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common and pronounced across the country. This performance suggests a greater degree of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Nevertheless, a medium-risk score is still a concern, as it indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. Strengthening information literacy and journal selection policies would further mitigate this reputational risk and prevent the misallocation of research efforts.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.808, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.684. This low-risk value indicates that authorship practices at the University are well-managed and align with international norms, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. By avoiding the dilution of individual accountability, the institution upholds a high standard of transparency in its research contributions, a key component of scientific integrity.

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

A moderate deviation is observed with the institution's Z-score of 1.525, which contrasts sharply with the low-risk national average of -0.159. This indicates that the University is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external partners, as the impact of research led internally is comparatively low. This signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.259 signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.115. This complete absence of risk signals is a clear strength, demonstrating a healthy balance between quantity and quality in scientific production. It confirms that the institutional culture effectively prevents dynamics such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a preventive isolation from a risk that is present at the national level (country Z-score: 0.154). The University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, indicating a clear preference for external, independent validation channels. This very low reliance on in-house journals mitigates potential conflicts of interest and avoids the risk of academic endogamy. By prioritizing publication in externally peer-reviewed journals, the institution ensures its scientific production is subject to global competitive standards, enhancing its visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.182 indicates a medium level of risk, but this represents a state of relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.716. Although signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' exist, the University operates with more order than the national average. This practice, where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts the scientific evidence base. The moderate score suggests a need to reinforce policies that encourage the publication of comprehensive, significant studies over a high volume of fragmented outputs.