Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance alongside vulnerabilities that mirror, and in some cases deviate from, national trends. With an overall integrity score of 0.326, the institution exhibits exceptional control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolificacy and publication in institutional journals. However, notable challenges persist in areas of high institutional self-citation, a medium rate of redundant publications, and a concerning gap in the impact of its researcher-led output. These risks stand in contrast to the university's clear thematic leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (#1), Psychology (#1), Social Sciences (#2), and Medicine (#3). While a formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, any institutional ambition toward excellence and societal impact is potentially undermined by practices that suggest an inflation of impact and a dependency on external collaborations for prestige. To secure its position as a national leader, the university is encouraged to leverage its strong governance foundations to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its outstanding academic reputation is built upon a bedrock of verifiable and sustainable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.667, slightly higher than the national average of -0.785. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, this subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability. The university's practices are statistically normal for its context, but the minor elevation in its rate of multiple affiliations warrants observation. While often legitimate, this indicator can signal early-stage "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Proactive monitoring is recommended to ensure this trend does not escalate and that all affiliations reflect substantive collaborative contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This indicates a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks prevalent in the country. A low retraction rate suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are effective. This performance points to a robust integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that sets it apart from the national standard, turning potentially negative events into evidence of responsible scientific practice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 2.677, a significant risk level that is, however, considerably lower than the critical national average of 4.357. This constitutes an attenuated alert; while the institution is an outlier by global standards, it demonstrates more control over this practice than its national peers. A high rate of self-citation signals a potential "echo chamber," where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny, leading to endogamous impact inflation. The university's relative moderation of this widespread national trend is positive, but the significant score still warns that its academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution records a Z-score of 1.578, which, while indicating a medium risk, is an improvement upon the national average of 2.278. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university appears to moderate a risk that is common across the country. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being placed in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy to prevent the misallocation of research efforts into predatory or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.489, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, though slightly above the national average of -0.684. This score represents an incipient vulnerability. While the current level is not alarming and aligns with national norms, the slight increase suggests a trend that should be monitored. Hyper-authorship, when not justified by "Big Science" collaborations, can dilute individual accountability and signal practices like honorary authorship. Continued attention is needed to ensure that author lists remain a transparent and accurate reflection of intellectual contribution.

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

The university shows a Z-score of 0.550, a medium-risk level that marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.159. This disparity indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. The positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is disproportionately dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a sustainability risk, as its high-impact reputation appears to be more exogenous and strategic rather than a result of its own structural research capacity. This finding invites a deep reflection on strategies to foster and promote internally-led, high-impact research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.309 signifies a very low risk, performing even better than the already strong national average of -1.115. This result can be described as total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is below the national baseline. It strongly indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, where extreme publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution are not a feature. This exceptional performance suggests that coercive or honorary authorship practices are not prevalent and that the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university demonstrates a very low risk in this area, a stark and positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal "fast tracks."

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution has a Z-score of 2.150, indicating a medium risk of redundant output. While this is a clear area for improvement, it shows relative containment compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. This suggests that although the practice of fragmenting studies into "minimal publishable units" to inflate productivity exists, the university operates with more order than the national trend. However, the medium-risk alert is a serious concern, as it warns that this practice may be distorting the scientific evidence base and over-burdening the review system by prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.