National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a notable contrast between areas of exceptional governance and zones of significant risk. With an overall risk score of 1.766, the institution demonstrates clear strengths in maintaining scientific autonomy, with very low risk in the gap between its total impact and the impact of its led research, as well as in the rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in institutional journals. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, particularly significant rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant output (salami slicing), which exceed even the high national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds competitive national positions in Medicine (ranked 12th) and Social Sciences (ranked 38th). These high-risk indicators directly challenge the university's mission to ensure "high-quality higher education" and foster an "innovative scientific space" with "morally stable" specialists. Practices that prioritize volume over substance can undermine the credibility of its research and compromise its authority in the global sports community. This report should therefore be viewed as a strategic tool to address these specific vulnerabilities, reinforcing the institution's foundational strengths to fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence and integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.889 for multiple affiliations is very low, positioning it favorably within the national context, which has a Z-score of -0.785. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that the university's affiliations are managed transparently and reflect legitimate collaborations, such as researcher mobility or partnerships, rather than strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit. This responsible approach reinforces the integrity of its collaborative network.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 4.541, the institution's rate of retracted output is at a significant risk level, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk score of 0.056. This indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is markedly amplifying it, pointing to a critical internal issue. A rate this high suggests that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture signals possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a significant Z-score of 7.080 in institutional self-citation, a figure that dramatically exceeds the already high national average of 4.357. This positions the institution as a leader in this high-risk practice within a country already facing challenges in this area. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers,' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic warns of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal citation patterns rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.764 for output in discontinued journals, while at a medium risk level, is substantially lower than the country's average of 2.278. This demonstrates a differentiated and more effective management of publication channels compared to its national peers. The university appears to moderate a risk that is common in its environment, suggesting a more robust due diligence process in selecting dissemination venues. This proactive approach helps protect the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.239, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low but slightly more pronounced than the national average of -0.684. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While not currently a significant issue, this signal suggests a need to review authorship practices to ensure they remain transparent and accountable. It is important to proactively distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices before this trend escalates into a more serious concern.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.819, indicating a very low and healthy gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, which is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.159). This result is a strong indicator of scientific self-sufficiency and structural health. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics are the result of the institution's own core capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors indicates a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low national average of -1.115. This operational silence in a critical integrity metric is commendable. It suggests a healthy academic environment where there is a strong balance between quantity and quality, and where authorship is likely tied to meaningful intellectual contribution rather than coercive practices or attempts to inflate publication metrics. This reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk national trend of publishing in institutional journals (country Z-score of 0.154). This preventive stance is a sign of strong governance. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 4.137 for redundant output is a global red flag, indicating a critical risk level that significantly exceeds the country's already high average of 2.716. This positions the university as a leading contributor to this problematic practice within a compromised national system. Such a high value is a strong alert for 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior distorts the scientific evidence base, overburdens the peer review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.