| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.516 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
10.402 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.122 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.303 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.499 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.944 | 2.716 |
Admiral Makarov National University of Shipbuilding presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, combining areas of exceptional governance with significant, concentrated risks. With an overall score of 0.727, the institution demonstrates remarkable strengths in preventing hyper-prolific authorship, avoiding academic endogamy through institutional journals, and ensuring its scientific impact is driven by its own intellectual leadership. These strengths are foundational pillars of a healthy research culture. However, this positive landscape is critically undermined by two major vulnerabilities: an extremely high rate of institutional self-citation and a significant volume of publications in discontinued journals. These practices directly threaten the university's mission of achieving academic excellence and contributing responsibly to global knowledge, as they suggest a focus on inflated internal metrics over genuine, externally validated impact. The institution's strong performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its Top 10 national ranking in Engineering and notable positions in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Mathematics, and Energy, provides a solid academic base. To secure and enhance this reputation, it is imperative to address the identified integrity risks, aligning its publication and citation strategies with the high standards evident in its other operational areas, thereby ensuring its research prestige is both robust and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of -1.516 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.785. This demonstrates a commendable alignment with best practices, indicating that the university maintains a transparent and straightforward approach to author affiliations. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that collaborations are managed with integrity, avoiding any strategic inflation of institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which reinforces the credibility of its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution maintains a low rate of retractions, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national environment (Z-score of 0.056). This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. This proactive approach to supervision and methodological rigor protects the university’s reputation by preventing the kind of systemic failures that often lead to a high volume of retracted publications.
This indicator presents a critical area of concern. The institution's Z-score of 10.402 is not only significant but also dramatically higher than the already elevated national average of 4.357. This constitutes a global red flag, suggesting the university is amplifying a high-risk practice within a nationally compromised system. A disproportionately high rate of self-citation can signal the presence of a scientific 'echo chamber,' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice carries a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, potentially oversizing the institution's perceived academic influence through internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 3.122 in this indicator, accentuating the vulnerability already present at the national level, which has a medium-risk score of 2.278. This pattern is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. It suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets, thereby preventing a waste of resources and safeguarding academic credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.303 indicates a low risk but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.684. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that, while not currently alarming, warrants monitoring. It is important to ensure that authorship practices continue to reflect genuine collaboration and individual accountability. A continued upward trend could signal a dilution of transparency or the emergence of 'honorary' authorship, making proactive review a prudent measure.
The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in this area, with a Z-score of -2.499 that is significantly better than the country's low-risk average of -0.159. This result indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and built upon its own internal capacity. The data strongly suggests that its high-impact research is a direct result of projects where the institution exercises intellectual leadership, demonstrating a sustainable model of academic excellence that is not dependent on the prestige of external collaborators.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low national average of -1.115. This signifies total operational silence for this indicator. It points to a healthy research environment where there is a clear balance between productivity and quality, free from the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, creating a stark and positive contrast with the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. By favoring external, independent peer-reviewed journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research is validated against global standards, thereby enhancing its international visibility and credibility.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 1.944, while an area for attention, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.716. Although signals of data fragmentation exist, the university appears to manage this issue with more control than its national peers. The practice of 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate publication counts can distort the scientific record. While the institution's moderated risk level is a positive sign of differentiated management, the presence of this behavior still warrants a review of publication ethics and author guidelines to promote the dissemination of more significant and complete studies.
