Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.031. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research practices that are national vulnerabilities, particularly a near-zero risk of redundant output (salami slicing), hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals. These results indicate strong internal governance. The main area requiring strategic attention is the significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for prestige. This, along with moderate risks in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, presents a challenge to its mission of fostering "cutting-edge scientific research" and "international experience" through genuine internal capacity. The University's outstanding performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with top national positions in Chemistry, Medicine, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, provides a solid foundation of excellence. To fully align with its mission, the University is encouraged to leverage this academic strength to cultivate greater intellectual leadership in its partnerships, thereby transforming its collaborative success into a more sustainable, internally-driven model of scientific innovation and social impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.857, slightly below the national average of -0.785. This prudent profile, with both scores in the low-risk range, suggests that the University manages its affiliations with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a transparent and well-governed approach, effectively avoiding strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in contrast to the national average of 0.056, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. A rate significantly lower than the national context suggests that the University's pre-publication quality control and supervision are robust, reflecting a strong integrity culture that effectively prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of 1.151 indicates a medium level of risk, yet this figure demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk score of 4.357. Although the institution shows some signals of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' it does so with far more moderation than the national trend. This suggests that while there is a need to enhance external validation, the University is successfully controlling the risk of endogamous impact inflation, a vulnerability that appears to be deeply accentuated in the national system.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.982 is notably lower than the national average of 2.278, although both fall within the medium-risk band. This points to a differentiated management strategy where the University moderates risks that are common across the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. The University's lower score indicates a more discerning approach in selecting dissemination channels, thereby mitigating some of the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices that appear more widespread nationally.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.852 is slightly lower than the national average of -0.684, placing both in a low-risk category. This prudent profile indicates that the University manages authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates can signal author list inflation. The institution's low score suggests its collaborative research maintains transparency and individual accountability, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.426, a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk -0.159. This greater sensitivity to risk factors highlights a key vulnerability. A wide positive gap, as seen here, signals a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites critical reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.210, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already very low national average of -1.115. This total operational silence in a low-risk environment is a clear indicator of strength. It suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.154). By not replicating this national trend, the University avoids the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This commitment to external peer review strengthens its global visibility and confirms that it does not use internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic records, a risk more present in its environment.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.888 signifies a very low risk, marking a stark environmental disconnection from the country's critical situation (Z-score: 2.716). This result indicates that the University maintains robust internal governance independent of the national context. While massive bibliographic overlap often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the institution's exemplary score shows a strong commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity, a practice that appears to be a systemic vulnerability in the country.