Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.593 reflecting a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust internal governance in key areas, showing a very low risk in hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and, most notably, a strong capacity for intellectual leadership as evidenced by the impact of its own research. However, these strengths are severely undermined by significant risks in its publication and citation strategies, particularly an alarming rate of institutional self-citation and a high volume of output in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in areas such as Arts and Humanities (2nd), Earth and Planetary Sciences (10th), and Engineering (15th). These high-risk practices directly threaten its mission "to form new generation of specialists who are able to modernize construction and architecture branch in Ukraine," as modernization requires global engagement and adherence to international quality standards, not academic isolation. To secure its reputation and fulfill its mission, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research leadership and authorial integrity to urgently reform its publication selection and citation culture, ensuring its scientific output is both impactful and credible on the world stage.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -0.482 compared to the national average of -0.785, the university shows early signs of a potential vulnerability. Although the overall risk level is low for both the institution and the country, the university's rate is slightly elevated relative to its national peers. This suggests a minor but noticeable trend that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this slight uptick could, if it grows, begin to signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, making it a metric to monitor proactively before it escalates.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates notable resilience in its quality control processes, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.108 in contrast to Ukraine's medium-risk national average of 0.056. This positive differential suggests that the university's internal review and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning well, protecting the institution from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate would imply and showcasing a culture of responsible research.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 7.635 for institutional self-citation constitutes a global red flag, dramatically exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This result indicates that the institution is not just participating in a problematic national trend but is a leader in it. Such an extreme value points to a critical risk of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence may be dangerously oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global community, a situation that requires an urgent and profound review of citation practices to restore external credibility.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a significant Z-score of 2.915, the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system, where the average is a medium-risk 2.278. This high rate is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. 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. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.723 for hyper-authored output is statistically normal, aligning closely with the national average of -0.684. This indicates that the university's authorship practices are consistent with the expectations for its context and size. The absence of a high Z-score suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution is effectively avoiding issues of author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its collaborative research efforts.

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

The university exhibits a key institutional strength with a Z-score of -2.540, indicating a very low risk and a performance significantly better than the national low-risk standard of -0.159. A negative value in this indicator is highly positive, as it shows that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is greater than the impact of its overall output. This signals strong internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, confirming that the university's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on the leadership of external collaborators.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average of -1.115. This operational silence is a strong marker of a healthy research environment focused on quality. It demonstrates that the university is not facing issues where extreme individual publication volumes might challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution displays a commendable level of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.154. By largely avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and signals a commitment to standard competitive validation over the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university demonstrates relative containment of redundant publications, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.808, which is significantly more controlled than the critical national average of 2.716. Although risk signals are present, this indicates that the institution operates with more order than its national peers. While some level of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' may be occurring, the university appears to have mechanisms that prevent this practice from becoming a systemic crisis. Nonetheless, this remains an area requiring monitoring to ensure that the focus stays on producing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity.