Kyiv National Economics University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kyiv National Economics University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 1.498 that reflects a combination of exemplary governance in some areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. However, these strengths are offset by significant concerns regarding the Rate of Retracted Output and an extremely high Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which pose a direct threat to its scientific reputation. This dichotomy is particularly relevant given the university's strong academic standing, as evidenced by its Top 10 national rankings in key areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the high-risk indicators identified directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. A high incidence of retractions and reliance on low-quality journals undermines the credibility of its research and its contribution to society. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its clear strengths in authorship governance to implement targeted interventions that enhance pre-publication quality control and promote due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels, thereby safeguarding its strong thematic reputation and ensuring its research is both impactful and reliable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -1.080 compared to the national Z-score of -0.785, the university demonstrates a very low and well-managed rate of multiple affiliations. This performance indicates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data suggests that affiliations are managed with transparency, reflecting genuine collaborations rather than "affiliation shopping," which reinforces a culture of clear and honest academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university's Z-score of 1.047 for retracted output is at a significant level, starkly contrasting with the country's moderate Z-score of 0.056. This discrepancy indicates a risk accentuation, where the institution appears to amplify vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This high Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a medium risk level for self-citation with a Z-score of 0.525, which is notably lower than the country's critical Z-score of 4.357. This demonstrates a relative containment of a widespread national issue. Although risk signals exist, the university operates with more order than the national average. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' where work lacks external scrutiny. The university's ability to moderate this trend suggests its control mechanisms are mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation, though continued monitoring is needed to ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With an institutional Z-score of 7.399, the rate of publication in discontinued journals is critically high, far exceeding the national Z-score of 2.278. This pattern points to a severe risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a concerning national trend. This extremely high Z-score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, indicating that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -0.991), performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.684). This prudent profile suggests that authorship lists are well-managed and reflect genuine collaboration. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation. The institution's data indicates it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research.

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

The university demonstrates a low and well-controlled gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its led research, with a Z-score of -0.297 that is more favorable than the national average of -0.159. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely derived from its own structural capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal that excellence is exogenous, not internal. The university's healthy balance indicates strong internal capabilities and intellectual leadership within its collaborations, mitigating risks to its long-term sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even more favorable than the country's very low average of -1.115. This total operational silence indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's data confirms that such dynamics, which prioritize metrics over scientific integrity, are not a feature of its research environment.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, in contrast to the country's moderate-risk Z-score of 0.154. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and demonstrating a commitment to competitive validation over internal 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output is at a medium level (Z-score: 0.359), but this represents a significant containment of the critical risk seen across the country (Z-score: 2.716). This suggests that while some instances of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' may exist, the university's internal controls are more effective than the national norm. This practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity distorts scientific evidence. The university's ability to moderate this trend points to a differentiated management approach that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over mere volume.