Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational transparency and research autonomy, but also shadowed by critical vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.429, the institution demonstrates commendable performance in areas such as Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and maintaining intellectual leadership in its collaborations. A particularly notable achievement is its role as an effective firewall against the nationally prevalent risks of redundant publication (salami slicing) and its preventive isolation from the widespread use of institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic contributions, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Arts and Humanities (ranked 13th in Ukraine) and Social Sciences. However, this positive outlook is seriously challenged by a significant-risk rating in Institutional Self-Citation, which exceeds the already high national average, and medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals. These practices risk creating an academic echo chamber and threaten to undermine the external validation and global reach essential to any mission of academic excellence and social responsibility. To secure its reputation and build upon its strengths, the University is advised to implement targeted policies that address these specific high-risk indicators, thereby ensuring its research impact is both authentic and globally recognized.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University demonstrates an exemplary commitment to affiliation transparency, with a Z-score of -1.648, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, positioning the institution as a leader in clear and unambiguous authorship credit. This low-profile consistency with the national standard shows that the University's policies effectively prevent the strategic use of multiple affiliations to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The data confirms that collaborations are managed with a high degree of integrity, ensuring that institutional contributions are represented accurately.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.004, the University's rate of retractions is situated at a medium risk level, mirroring the national context (Z-score: 0.056). However, the institution's slightly lower score suggests a degree of differentiated management that moderates a risk common in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a sustained medium rate suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic pressures. This level of activity, while not critical, serves as an alert that a vulnerability may exist in the institutional integrity culture, warranting a qualitative review to ensure that potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor are proactively addressed.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

This indicator represents a critical vulnerability for the University. Its Z-score of 6.179 is not only in the significant risk category but is substantially higher than the already compromised national average of 4.357. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the institution is a primary driver of this high-risk practice within its national system. Such a disproportionately high rate signals the presence of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a severe risk 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, requiring urgent strategic intervention.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University shows a medium risk in this area with a Z-score of 2.369, slightly exceeding the national average of 2.278. This indicates a high exposure to a risk that appears to be a systemic pattern within the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -1.200, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.684. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a strong adherence to transparent and meaningful authorship criteria. The data confirms that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" contexts, the University effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships. This low-profile consistency reflects robust internal governance that prioritizes individual accountability and aligns with the highest standards of research integrity.

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

With a Z-score of -0.826, far below the national average of -0.159, the University demonstrates outstanding scientific autonomy and structural capacity. This very low-risk score indicates that the impact of research led by its own authors is highly consistent with the impact of its overall output. This is a powerful sign that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by its own internal capabilities and intellectual leadership. This performance, which surpasses the already positive national standard, confirms that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine, sustainable research programs.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.573, placing it in the low-risk category. However, this represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the risk is virtually non-existent (Z-score: -1.115). This finding suggests that while the institution's overall profile is healthy, it is beginning to show isolated signals of a risk activity that is not typical for the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. These incipient signals warrant proactive monitoring to ensure they do not escalate into practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University displays a clear strategic choice for external validation, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in publications within its own journals, in stark contrast to the medium-risk level seen nationally (Z-score: 0.154). This demonstrates a powerful form of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the University effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This approach ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility instead of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

In a remarkable display of scientific integrity, the University maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.103 for redundant output, while the national context faces a critical-level crisis with a Z-score of 2.716. This severe discrepancy highlights the institution's role as an effective filter, acting as a firewall against a widespread national practice. The data confirms that the University's culture and control mechanisms successfully prevent 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of studies to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant work prioritizes the generation of new knowledge over volume, setting a benchmark for integrity within a highly compromised national environment.