| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.090 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.605 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.046 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.242 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.334 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.565 | 2.716 |
Sevastopol State University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating significant operational strengths alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.606, the institution exhibits exemplary control in areas such as hyper-authorship, intellectual leadership, and the avoidance of academic endogamy, indicating robust internal governance in these domains. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable academic positioning, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Chemistry, Arts and Humanities, and Earth and Planetary Sciences. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by significant risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, and publication in discontinued journals. These practices directly challenge the core tenets of any academic mission centered on excellence and social responsibility, as they risk creating an insular research culture and devaluing the credibility of its scientific contributions. To safeguard its reputation and ensure its research has a genuine global impact, the university is advised to leverage its demonstrated governance capabilities to implement targeted interventions that address these critical integrity gaps.
The institution's Z-score of -0.090 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.785, indicating a minor but noticeable increase in this activity compared to its national peers. Although the overall risk level remains low, this subtle uptick suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this deviation from the national norm calls for monitoring to ensure that these practices continue to reflect genuine collaboration rather than evolving into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, performing significantly better than the national average of 0.056, which signals a medium level of risk. This suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can be complex, but this low rate indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust and that its approach to correcting the scientific record is responsible and well-managed, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of rigor that may be affecting its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of 4.605 represents a global red flag, as it not only indicates a significant risk but also exceeds the already compromised national average of 4.357. This suggests the university is a leading contributor to a critical integrity issue within the country. While some self-citation reflects the continuity of research, such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation. This practice creates an academic 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, warning of endogamous impact inflation where the institution's influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score of 3.046 places it at a significant risk level, accentuating a vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.278. This indicates that the institution is more susceptible than its peers to channeling its research into questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being directed to media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency and strong integrity in authorship practices, with a Z-score of -1.242, which is well within the very low-risk category and superior to the national low-risk average of -0.684. This absence of risk signals aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard. The data confirms that the university is not showing signs of author list inflation, thereby maintaining high standards of individual accountability and transparency. This indicates a healthy distinction between necessary collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -1.334, the institution shows an exceptionally low-risk profile, far below the national average of -0.159. This excellent result demonstrates low-profile consistency and indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity. This score suggests that the institution's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, pointing to a sustainable and self-reliant research ecosystem that generates impact from its own core activities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies total operational silence in this risk area, placing it in the very low-risk category and even below the national average of -1.115. This complete absence of risk signals is an exemplary finding. It suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume of publications, with no evidence of the imbalances that can lead to coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This indicates that the integrity of the scientific record is being upheld by fostering a balance between productivity and meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university shows a commendable preventive isolation from a national trend, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.154. This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not depending on its own journals for publication, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review strengthens its credibility and ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 3.565 is a global red flag, indicating a critical level of risk that surpasses the already significant national average of 2.716. This positions the university as a leader in a highly problematic practice within a compromised national context. Such a high value alerts to the systemic practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer review system but also signals a culture that may prioritize volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, posing a serious threat to its scientific reputation.
