National Technical University of Ukraine - Kyiv Polytechnic Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National Technical University of Ukraine - Kyiv Polytechnic Institute demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside critical vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.267, the institution shows commendable strength in managing authorship practices, affiliation transparency, and reliance on external publication channels, often outperforming national averages. These robust controls are foundational to its research excellence, particularly in its top-ranked thematic areas within Ukraine, including Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked #2), and its strong #4 national rankings in Chemistry, Computer Science, and Engineering, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is severely undermined by significant risk levels in institutional self-citation and redundant output, which mirror and, in the case of self-citation, even exceed the high-risk national context. These practices directly conflict with the institutional mission to achieve the "highest levels of excellence," as they suggest a focus on insular validation and metric inflation rather than genuine, globally recognized contributions. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the University must urgently address these integrity gaps, ensuring its impressive research capacity translates into sustainable and unimpeachable societal impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.022, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a very clear and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations, aligning with national standards while demonstrating an even higher degree of rigor. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's low score suggests a robust system that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution maintains a low rate of retracted publications, demonstrating notable resilience in a national context that shows a medium risk level (Z-score: 0.056). This suggests that the University's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in its environment. A low retraction rate is a positive sign of responsible research conduct, indicating that pre-publication review processes are likely robust, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's rate of self-citation presents a critical integrity risk, with a Z-score of 5.475. This figure not only signifies a major vulnerability but also amplifies the problematic trend already present at the national level, where the average Z-score is a significant 4.357. This pattern points to a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a disproportionately high rate warns of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, a practice that undermines the credibility of its research contributions.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University shows a medium risk in publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 1.125. However, this performance indicates differentiated management compared to the national landscape, which presents a more pronounced medium risk with a Z-score of 2.278. This suggests that while the institution is not immune to the national trend, it exercises greater caution in selecting publication venues. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score still constitutes an alert regarding due diligence. It indicates that a portion of its scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a need to reinforce information literacy and vetting processes to avoid reputational damage and the misallocation of research efforts.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -0.990, which is lower than the national average of -0.684. Both scores fall within the low-risk category, but the University's position indicates more rigorous management of authorship practices than the national standard. This low incidence suggests that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" collaborations, the institution effectively discourages author list inflation. This serves as a positive signal for individual accountability and transparency, helping to prevent 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute the meaning of a contribution.

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

With a Z-score of -0.527, the institution demonstrates a healthy and prudent balance between the impact of its overall output and that of the research it leads, performing more rigorously than the national standard (Z-score: -0.159). A low negative gap is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's prestige is not overly dependent on external partners where it plays a secondary role. This result reflects a solid internal capacity for generating high-impact research, confirming that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine intellectual leadership rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413. This is an exemplary result, placing it in a more secure position than even the very low-risk national average (Z-score: -1.115). This "operational silence" indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It confirms the absence of extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding associated risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University demonstrates a clear strategic choice to engage with the global scientific community, showing a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268). This practice represents a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally, where there is a medium-level tendency to publish in-house (Z-score: 0.154). By prioritizing external, independent peer review over internal channels, the institution avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an organization acts as both judge and party. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, signaling a focus on competitive, high-quality output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic concerning redundant publications, with a Z-score of 2.763, which is almost identical to the national average of 2.716. This alignment indicates that the University's practices reflect a systemic, country-wide issue. Such a high value is a strong alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the scientific evidence available to the community but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.