| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.572 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.090 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.841 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.812 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.149 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.446 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.326 | 2.716 |
Sumy National Agrarian University demonstrates a solid overall performance profile with a score of 0.853, indicating a strong foundation in research governance alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust internal controls, reflected by a very low incidence of hyperprolific authorship and minimal reliance on institutional journals, which points to a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation. Furthermore, the university shows resilience against national trends in publication retractions and maintains a sustainable impact model based on its own intellectual leadership. However, these strengths are contrasted by significant risks in publication strategy, most notably a high rate of output in discontinued journals and a concerning level of institutional self-citation. These weaknesses, coupled with moderate risks in multiple affiliations and redundant output, directly challenge the university's mission to provide "high-quality" education and research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in key areas such as Mathematics (ranked 8th in Ukraine), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (14th), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (14th), which align perfectly with its agrarian focus. To fully realize its mission and protect its academic reputation, the university should leverage its governance strengths to urgently reform its publication and citation practices, ensuring its operational conduct fully aligns with its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.572, which deviates moderately from the national average of -0.785. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the higher rate at the university suggests a need to review affiliation practices. This moderate deviation warrants an internal assessment to ensure that these affiliations genuinely reflect substantive partnerships and are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit, a practice sometimes referred to as “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.090, the institution demonstrates a commendable performance, especially when compared to the national average of 0.056, which signals a medium-level risk. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low retraction rate is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review. The university's ability to maintain a clean record in an environment with higher risk dynamics indicates that its integrity culture and methodological rigor are effective filters against recurring malpractice or unintentional errors.
The institution's Z-score of 2.841 is at a significant risk level, though it remains below the critical national average of 4.357. This represents an attenuated alert; while the university is an outlier on a global scale, it exhibits more control over this issue than the country as a whole. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the current high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice risks creating an endogamous impact, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, warranting a strategic review of citation patterns.
The university's Z-score of 3.812 is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.278. This finding suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. Publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. This high rate indicates that a significant portion of scientific output is channeled through predatory or low-quality media, signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines for researchers to avoid wasting resources and compromising institutional integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.149 is statistically normal and aligns with the low-risk national average of -0.684. However, the university's score is slightly higher than the country's, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. While the current level does not suggest widespread author list inflation, it does represent a faint signal that warrants review before it escalates. This metric serves as a reminder to continually distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices that could dilute individual accountability and transparency in the future.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.446, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.159. This negative value indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is strong and not significantly dependent on external partners. This suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard, fostering a sustainable model of scientific prestige built on genuine internal capacity rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This is a sign of a healthy and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a total operational silence in this risk area, performing even better than the already low national average of -1.115. This absence of risk signals is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture that balances productivity with quality. It suggests that the university is effectively avoiding dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This excellent result reflects an environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the artificial inflation of publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a very low risk and demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average of 0.154 indicates a medium-level risk. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment, the university shows a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. It ensures that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of 2.326 indicates a medium risk level, but it also shows relative containment when compared to the country's significant risk score of 2.716. Although risk signals for data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' are present, the university appears to operate with more order than the national average. This practice, where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. While the university is managing this risk better than its peers, the existing medium level still points to a vulnerability that requires attention to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than on publication volume.
