Kharkiv National Automobile and Highway University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kharkiv National Automobile and Highway University demonstrates a solid overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in governance and operational integrity, alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The institution excels in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Multiple Affiliations, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal policies that prevent common integrity risks. These strengths provide a firm foundation for its notable academic contributions, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Mathematics, Engineering, Energy, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. However, this positive profile is severely challenged by significant risks in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, and Rate of Institutional Self-Citation. These practices directly contradict the principles of scientific excellence and social responsibility inherent to a university's mission, threatening to undermine the credibility of its research. By leveraging its proven governance capabilities to address these specific integrity gaps, the university can safeguard its reputation and ensure the long-term value of its scientific endeavors.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.332, which is notably better than the already low-risk national average of -0.785. This demonstrates a clear alignment with national standards for research integrity, suggesting that the university's governance and affiliation policies are highly effective. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the absence of any risk signals in this area indicates that the institution successfully avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a culture of transparency and clear attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.014, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest corrections. However, the institution's ability to keep this rate low indicates that its pre-publication quality control and supervision processes are robust, effectively preventing 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 2.971 for self-citation is at a significant risk level, signaling a critical area for review. This issue is part of a wider national context, where the country's average Z-score is even higher at 4.357. This indicates that while the university is an outlier on a global scale, it demonstrates more control over this practice than the national average, suggesting an attenuated alert. A disproportionately high rate of self-citation can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 2.251 reflects a medium level of risk, which is nearly identical to the national average of 2.278. This alignment suggests that the university's performance is indicative of a systemic pattern, likely reflecting shared practices or information gaps at a national level regarding the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's Z-score of 1.458 (significant risk) and the country's low-risk average of -0.684. This atypical risk activity, which is not reflective of national norms, requires a deep integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score outside these areas can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal is a critical call to investigate internal authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' or political authorship assignments.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.836, indicating a medium-risk gap, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.159. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -1.115. This complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to a healthy national environment, is exemplary. It indicates that the institution fosters a research culture that effectively avoids the pressures that can lead to hyperprolificacy, thereby preventing potential imbalances between quantity and quality and steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk of publishing in its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This preventive isolation demonstrates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's low score indicates it successfully avoids the risk of academic endogamy and the potential use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 7.246 is a global red flag, indicating an extremely high and critical risk level. This score is substantially worse than the country's already significant-risk average of 2.716, positioning the university as a leader in this problematic metric within a highly compromised national system. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This exceptionally high value alerts to a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge.