| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.887 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
6.045 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.541 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.680 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.358 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.757 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.182 | 2.716 |
The National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine demonstrates a profile of notable strengths and specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution's overall integrity performance is marked by exceptional control in key areas, such as its capacity to generate high-impact research under its own leadership (Gap between Impact) and its commitment to external validation by avoiding publication in institutional journals. However, this robust foundation is critically undermined by a significant rate of institutional self-citation and a medium-to-high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output. These risks directly challenge the university's mission to address "contemporary science issues" and achieve "balanced development," as they suggest a potential for scientific isolation and a disconnect from global quality standards. The institution's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly within its core thematic areas of Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 7th in Ukraine), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (8th), and Engineering (8th), provides a solid platform for growth. To fully leverage these academic strengths and align its practices with its mission of excellence, it is recommended that the university focus its strategic integrity efforts on mitigating the risks of endogamy and improving its due diligence in selecting publication venues, thereby ensuring its valuable research achieves the global recognition and impact it deserves.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.887 compared to the national average of -0.785, the university exhibits an exemplary low-risk profile in this area. This result indicates that the institution operates with a high degree of transparency and order, showing even fewer risk signals than the already low national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data, however, suggests a consistent and clear policy on affiliations, reflecting a strong foundation of administrative integrity that aligns with national best practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.061 stands in positive contrast to the national average of 0.056. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk more prevalent at the country level. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than the national context suggests that the university's pre-publication review processes are robust. This capacity to maintain a clean scientific record, even when the surrounding environment shows moderate vulnerability, points to a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor that serves as a protective filter.
This indicator presents a critical area of concern, with the institution's Z-score of 6.045 significantly exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This finding suggests the university is not only participating in a national high-risk trend but is actively amplifying it. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, such a disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of scientific isolation and the creation of an 'echo chamber.' This practice of endogamous impact inflation suggests the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, a dynamic that requires urgent strategic review.
The university's Z-score of 2.541 is slightly above the national average of 2.278, indicating a heightened exposure to this particular risk. Both the institution and the country operate in a medium-risk environment, but the university appears more prone to this behavior than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.680 is statistically identical to the national average of -0.684. This alignment indicates a state of normality, where the university's authorship practices are perfectly in sync with the expectations and norms of its national context. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation or practices that might dilute individual accountability. This reflects a balanced and appropriate approach to collaborative authorship, consistent with the standards of its scientific environment.
The university demonstrates a significant strength with a Z-score of -1.358, which is substantially better than the national average of -0.159. This result indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and driven by its own internal capacity. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, but the university's negative score shows the opposite: the research it leads is highly impactful. This reflects a sustainable model of scientific excellence, where prestige is the direct result of genuine intellectual leadership rather than strategic positioning in collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.757, the institution shows a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -1.115. While the risk level is low, it is noteworthy that the university registers faint signals of this activity in a national context where it is virtually non-existent. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. Although not currently an alert, this slight deviation from a very low-risk national baseline suggests that monitoring authorship distribution and productivity patterns would be a prudent, preventive measure.
The institution exhibits an outstandingly low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.154, which falls in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university deliberately avoids the risk dynamics common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's commitment to publishing in external venues indicates a strong preference for independent peer review and global visibility, effectively bypassing the risks of academic endogamy and ensuring its research is validated against international competitive standards.
The institution's Z-score of 2.182, while indicating a medium risk, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen in the national Z-score of 2.716. This suggests that although the university is not immune to a widespread national practice, its internal mechanisms or academic culture provide more effective control than the national average. A high rate of redundant output typically indicates data fragmentation to artificially inflate productivity. The university's ability to moderate this trend, even within a high-risk environment, is a positive sign of differentiated management, though the practice itself still warrants attention to ensure that scientific contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.
