| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.502 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.295 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
5.469 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.541 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.016 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.368 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.755 | 2.716 |
Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University demonstrates a complex profile, marked by a solid overall performance (Score: 0.957) that combines areas of exemplary scientific integrity with critical vulnerabilities requiring immediate attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust governance and a commitment to transparency in these domains. However, this is offset by significant risk alerts in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, which pose a direct threat to the credibility and impact of its research. These challenges contrast with the University's notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Computer Science (ranked #2 in Ukraine) and Arts and Humanities (ranked #9 in Ukraine). The identified integrity risks are in direct conflict with the institutional mission "To serve the individual, the community, and society," as practices that inflate metrics or compromise quality undermine the public trust and social responsibility that are central to this vision. By strategically addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can protect its strong thematic areas, ensure its research genuinely serves society, and fully align its operational practices with its core mission of excellence and service.
The University demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.502, which is significantly below the already low national average for Ukraine (Z-score: -0.785). This result indicates a healthy and transparent approach to institutional collaboration and author attribution. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with a national context of low activity, confirming that the institution's practices are a model of good governance. The data suggests that affiliations are a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, with no evidence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
The institution's rate of retracted output presents a medium-risk signal (Z-score: 0.295), which is notably higher than the national average for Ukraine (Z-score: 0.056). This indicates that the University is more exposed to this risk factor than its national peers. While some retractions can result from the honest correction of errors, a rate that deviates from the national norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges. This heightened signal alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring issues or a lack of methodological rigor could be present and require qualitative verification by management to prevent escalation.
With a Z-score of 5.469, the University's rate of institutional self-citation is at a significant risk level, substantially exceeding the already critical national average of 4.357. This positions the institution as a prominent outlier in a country where this practice is already a systemic issue. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a profound scientific isolation and the formation of an 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic presents a global red flag, as it warns of severe endogamous impact inflation and suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, demanding urgent intervention.
The University shows a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 3.541), a critical figure that amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 2.278). This suggests that the institution is not only participating in a problematic national trend but is a major contributor to it. This high Z-score constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.016), a figure that is even more conservative than the national standard in Ukraine (Z-score: -0.684). This prudent profile suggests that the University manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than its peers. The data indicates that the institution's research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This low-risk signal reflects a healthy approach to transparency and individual accountability in publication, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative work.
The University exhibits a medium-risk gap between its overall citation impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 0.368). This represents a moderate deviation from the national context, where this gap is low (Z-score: -0.159), indicating the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the University's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to its long-term scientific sustainability.
The University's rate of hyperprolific authors is exceptionally low (Z-score: -1.413), falling even below the very low national average for Ukraine (Z-score: -1.115). This total operational silence in a low-risk environment is a strong indicator of a well-balanced academic culture. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, demonstrating a commitment to protecting the integrity of the scientific record and ensuring that intellectual contributions are meaningful.
With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the University shows a clear disconnection from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level in Ukraine (Z-score: 0.154) regarding publication in institutional journals. This preventive isolation demonstrates robust internal governance that avoids the potential conflicts of interest inherent in this practice. By not depending on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility. This practice confirms that the University is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts, thereby upholding standard competitive validation.
The institution's rate of redundant output is critically high, with a Z-score of 4.755 that significantly surpasses the already significant national average of 2.716. This metric represents a global red flag, indicating that the University is a leader in this problematic practice within a country already highly compromised. The massive and recurring bibliographic overlap suggested by this score points directly to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies are divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice severely distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the review system, and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, requiring immediate and decisive corrective action.
