Dnipro University of Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Dnipro University of Technology demonstrates a dualistic profile, marked by world-class thematic leadership alongside critical institutional integrity risks. With an overall integrity score of 2.449, the institution exhibits exceptional strengths in individual research conduct, showing virtually no signs of hyper-prolific authorship, inflated author lists, or redundant publications—areas where it significantly outperforms national trends. This foundation of individual rigor supports its outstanding performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds the #1 national position in key areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, Environmental Science, and Physics and Astronomy. However, this academic excellence is severely undermined by systemic vulnerabilities, specifically an alarming rate of institutional self-citation and an extreme over-reliance on its own journals for publication. These practices directly conflict with its mission to foster an "evolutionary scientific and educational space on the principles of academy goodness," as they suggest academic endogamy and a potential lack of independent, external validation. To secure its legacy as a national leader, the University must urgently address these structural integrity risks, ensuring its remarkable research capacity is validated by global standards of transparency and peer review, thereby aligning its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates exemplary practice in this area, with a Z-score of -1.303, which is even lower than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a very low and controlled rate of multiple affiliations, suggesting that the University's policies and researcher practices are characterized by clarity and transparency. The absence of risk signals in this indicator aligns with the national standard, confirming that affiliation practices are well-managed. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's low-profile consistency in this metric reinforces its commitment to straightforward and honest academic crediting.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, showcasing strong resilience against a more concerning national trend where the average Z-score is 0.056. This suggests that the University's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. In this case, the institution's ability to keep this rate low demonstrates a robust pre-publication review process and a responsible research environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

This indicator represents a critical area of concern. The institution's Z-score of 7.497 is exceptionally high, significantly surpassing the already high national average of 4.357. This is a global red flag, indicating that the institution not only reflects a problematic national dynamic but is a primary driver of it. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these disproportionate rates signal a severe risk of an academic 'echo chamber,' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation suggests the University's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows responsible management in its choice of publication venues, with a Z-score of 1.700, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. Although both scores fall within a medium-risk range, the University demonstrates a more discerning approach than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, exposing an institution to severe reputational risks from 'predatory' or low-quality practices. By moderating this risk more effectively than the country at large, the institution shows a differentiated and more cautious management of its scientific dissemination strategy, though continued vigilance is warranted.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays a very healthy and transparent authorship culture, with a Z-score of -1.238, well below the national average of -0.684. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard of low-risk activity in this area. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, a high rate of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The University's very low score confirms that its research output is characterized by clear and appropriate crediting, effectively avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship and reinforcing a culture of meaningful contribution.

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

This is an area of significant strength for the institution. Its Z-score of -2.266 indicates a very low gap, contrasting sharply with the national average of -0.159. This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap can suggest that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The University's score demonstrates the opposite: its scientific impact is driven by research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. This reflects a robust and self-sufficient research ecosystem, where excellence is generated from within, not merely borrowed through collaboration.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits an outstanding commitment to research quality over quantity, with a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.115. This total operational silence suggests a research environment free from the pressures that can lead to hyper-productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The University's score reflects a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and values substantive contributions from its authors.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

This indicator is the most severe risk identified for the institution. Its Z-score is an extreme outlier at 22.533, catastrophically amplifying a vulnerability that is only moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This finding points to an excessive, almost exclusive, dependence on in-house journals, which raises profound conflicts of interest as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice creates a high risk of academic endogamy, where research may bypass independent external peer review. It suggests the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics without standard competitive validation, severely limiting the global visibility and credibility of the University's research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates exceptional scientific integrity by effectively acting as a firewall against a critical national trend. With a Z-score of -0.230, the University maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the significant risk level seen across the country (Z-score of 2.716). A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' indicates a practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The institution's ability to prevent this practice points to a strong culture or explicit policies that promote the publication of complete, coherent, and impactful research, prioritizing new knowledge over metric inflation.