West Ukrainian National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

West Ukrainian National University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.021 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the prevention of hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and excessive reliance on institutional journals, indicating robust internal governance in key aspects of research conduct. However, these strengths are offset by significant risks in institutional self-citation and a high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which suggest patterns of academic insularity and a potential lack of due diligence in dissemination strategies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Energy; and Business, Management and Accounting. The identified risks, particularly those related to insular validation and questionable publication channels, directly challenge the university's mission to foster a "professional culture." A truly professional culture requires engagement with and validation by the global scientific community, a principle undermined by practices that may inflate impact endogenously or expose research to low-quality venues. To fully realize its mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted strategies that address these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its academic contributions are both impactful and unimpeachably credible.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.557, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.785, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. This slight divergence from the national norm suggests the university shows early signals of risk activity not as prevalent elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, it is crucial to monitor this trend to ensure it does not evolve into a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of collaborative contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.211, the university's rate of retracted output is notably higher than the national average of 0.056, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers, pointing to potential systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 5.775, a critical value that not only represents a significant risk but also surpasses the already high national average of 4.357. This positions the institution as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. Such a disproportionately high rate signals concerning scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice warns of severe endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a significant risk with a Z-score of 5.128, a figure that starkly amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a score of 2.278. This accentuation of risk constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university demonstrates a prudent profile in managing authorship, with a Z-score of -0.997 that is lower than the national average of -0.684. This indicates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively controlling for potential author list inflation. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, the university reinforces individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of -0.469, which is lower than the national average of -0.159, the university displays a prudent profile, suggesting its scientific prestige is largely built on structural, internal capacity. This indicates that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard, avoiding a dependency on external partners for impact. A low gap between the impact of its total output and the work it leads demonstrates that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities, reinforcing its position as an intellectual leader in its collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even lower than the national average of -1.115. This absence of risk signals, falling below the already low national baseline, points to an exemplary environment that effectively discourages practices that prioritize quantity over quality. By preventing extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.154. This indicates the institution does not replicate the national tendency towards academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, thus mitigating conflicts of interest and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signals a complete environmental disconnection from the critical risk situation observed nationally, where the average is 2.716. This demonstrates that the university maintains strong internal governance independent of the country's widespread practices. The near-total absence of redundant output indicates a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflated productivity. This robust control over data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' ensures the university's contributions to the scientific record are meaningful and do not overburden the peer review system.