| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.987 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.230 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
6.972 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
11.816 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.920 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.289 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.565 | 2.716 |
The Interregional Academy of Personnel Management presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.432. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths in governance and research autonomy, particularly in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship, minimal dependency on external partners for impact, and prudent use of institutional journals. These positive indicators suggest robust internal controls in key areas. However, these strengths are offset by critical vulnerabilities in publication and citation practices, most notably a significant rate of output in discontinued journals and an exceptionally high rate of institutional self-citation. These risks directly challenge the pursuit of academic excellence and global recognition. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in Psychology (ranked 2nd in Ukraine), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3rd), and Business, Management and Accounting (5th), highlights its potential for leadership. To secure this potential, it is imperative to align its publication strategies with its academic strengths, leveraging its solid governance foundation to mitigate the identified risks and ensure its research contributions are both credible and globally impactful.
The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.987, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.785. This demonstrates a clear alignment with the national standard, where multiple affiliations are not a significant risk factor. The data suggests that the institution's collaborative practices are well-managed and do not present signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a transparent and straightforward approach to academic partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.230, the institution shows a medium level of risk that is notably higher than the national average of 0.056. This indicates a greater institutional exposure to the factors leading to retractions compared to its national peers. While some retractions can result from honest corrections, a rate that exceeds the national benchmark suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture warrants a qualitative review to identify and address potential recurring malpractice or gaps in methodological rigor before they escalate.
The institution's Z-score of 6.972 is a significant red flag, substantially exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This positions the Academy as a leader in risk within a country already facing challenges in this area. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a critical level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation is highly concerning, as it suggests that the institution's perceived academic influence is being artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global scientific community.
The institution displays a critical vulnerability with a Z-score of 11.816, dramatically amplifying a systemic risk that is present at a medium level nationally (Z-score: 2.278). This extremely high value constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the Academy's scientific output is being directed to journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent, systemic need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources into 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.920, indicating a lower risk than the national standard (-0.684). This suggests that the Academy manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than its peers. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability, reflecting a healthy and transparent approach to recognizing contributions in collaborative research that aligns with international best practices.
With a Z-score of -1.289, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, contrasting with the low-risk national average of -0.159. The absence of a significant gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the contributions of external partners. This reflects a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem capable of generating high-quality work independently.
The institution shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even lower than the very low-risk national average (-1.115). This complete absence of risk signals is an exceptional finding, indicating a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the institutional culture does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or data fragmentation and that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The Academy demonstrates a preventive isolation from a risk prevalent in its national environment. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This indicates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive reliance on institutional journals, the Academy enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of practices that could be used to inflate publication counts without standard scrutiny.
The institution shows a medium level of risk with a Z-score of 0.565, but this figure represents a notable degree of relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen across the country (Z-score: 2.716). Although signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' are present, the Academy appears to operate with more control and order than the national average. While the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity remains a concern that distorts the scientific record, the institution's ability to moderate this trend in a high-risk environment is a positive indicator of its internal management.
