Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University presents a profile of notable strengths and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall integrity score of 0.670, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in key areas of scientific leadership and publication ethics, particularly in its capacity to generate high-impact research under its own direction and its effective filtering of nationally prevalent risks like redundant publishing. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by a significant rate of institutional self-citation, which exceeds an already high national average, alongside concerning levels of hyperprolific authorship and multiple affiliations. These risk factors suggest a potential misalignment between quantitative output and genuine scientific innovation, which could challenge the University's mission to be a "center of innovative educational and scientific activity." The institution's strong academic standing, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Earth and Planetary Sciences (Top 2 in Ukraine), Environmental Science (Top 3), and Computer Science (Top 6), provides a solid foundation. To fully align its practices with its mission and secure its regional leadership, the University should prioritize a strategic review of its citation and authorship policies, ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is unequivocally supported by the highest standards of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score for this indicator is 2.458, showing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.785. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors driving multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The disparity with the national context indicates a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than practices aimed at metric optimization.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.051, the University's rate of retractions is nearly identical to the national average of 0.056. This alignment suggests that the institution's experience with retractions reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, and a rate that mirrors the national context is not in itself an alarm. However, it does imply that any vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be shared at a national level, warranting a consistent focus on maintaining robust methodological rigor and supervision to prevent future integrity issues.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University exhibits a critical vulnerability in this area, with a Z-score of 6.935, significantly higher than the already high national average of 4.357. This positions the institution as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already compromised by this practice. While some self-citation reflects ongoing research, this extreme value signals a concerning level of scientific isolation. It suggests the creation of an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally, posing a high risk of endogamous impact inflation. The University's academic influence may be perceived as oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates effective management in its choice of publication venues, with a Z-score of 1.094, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. This indicates that the University successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution shows a differentiated approach, better protecting itself from the reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.421, slightly above the national average of -0.684, though both are in the low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are normal in "Big Science," their appearance in other fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The University's score, while low, suggests it is beginning to show signals of this practice more than its peers, highlighting an area for proactive monitoring to distinguish between necessary collaboration and honorary authorship.

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

The University shows exceptional strength in its research autonomy, with a Z-score of -2.481, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.159). A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact. In contrast, the University's highly negative score is a clear indicator of scientific sustainability and maturity. It demonstrates that the prestige of its research is driven by strong internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, not by a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

A monitoring alert is triggered for this indicator, as the University's Z-score of 0.176 is unusually high for the national standard, where the average is a very low -1.115. This stark contrast requires a review of the underlying causes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator warns of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University demonstrates preventive isolation from a potential risk, with a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category while the national average sits at a medium-risk level of 0.154. This shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The University’s low score indicates that its research overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution functions as an effective filter against a significant national risk, with a Z-score of -0.056 in a country where the average is a critical 2.716. This performance indicates the University acts as a firewall against nationally prevalent practices of redundant publishing. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The University’s excellent score shows a commitment to prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and setting a high standard in its national context.