Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University (TNMU) presents a performance profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 1.297 reflecting both significant strengths and critical areas for strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in key areas of research practice, particularly in managing affiliations, institutional journal output, and authorship volume, which aligns with its mission to uphold high professional standards. This operational rigor is further evidenced by its strong thematic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing TNMU among the national leaders in critical fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (1st in Ukraine), Dentistry (3rd), and Medicine (5th). However, this profile of excellence is challenged by significant risk signals in three key indicators: Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and, most critically, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing). These practices directly threaten the university's mission to ensure the "highest ethical and professional standards," as they can undermine the quality of the scientific record and inflate productivity metrics artificially. To fully realize its vision of academic leadership and social responsibility, it is recommended that TNMU leverage its clear operational strengths to implement targeted governance and training initiatives aimed at mitigating these specific integrity risks, thereby ensuring its research impact is both robust and ethically sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates exceptional control in this area, with a Z-score of -0.968, which is even lower than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a robust and transparent system for managing researcher affiliations, showing a clear absence of risk signals in a national context that already presents a low-risk profile. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, TNMU's very low rate suggests that its policies effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution shows a low rate of retractions, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks more prevalent across the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, the university's low rate indicates that its pre-publication quality assurance processes are likely robust, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a significant risk level with a Z-score of 4.915, a value that surpasses the already high national average of 4.357. This positions the institution as a leader in risk metrics within a country already compromised in this area, signaling a critical need for attention. While some self-citation reflects the natural progression of research, such a disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal citation practices rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A significant Z-score of 3.656 places the institution in a high-risk category, amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 2.278. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. It strongly suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy and guidance for researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources and scientific effort into 'predatory' or low-quality channels that undermine the integrity of their work.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.943, which is well below the national average of -0.684. This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard, even within a low-risk context. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, TNMU's low score suggests it is effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation outside of these contexts. This reflects a healthy approach to authorship that promotes individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing legitimate collaboration from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The university shows a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.960 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.159. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capacity or a reliance on external partners.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

A Z-score of 0.184 places the institution at a medium risk level, which constitutes a monitoring alert as it is an unusual signal in a national environment with a very low-risk average of -1.115. This discrepancy requires a review of its underlying causes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator warns of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution displays a commendable Z-score of -0.268, signifying a very low risk and a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the national tendency toward publishing in-house. While institutional journals can be useful for local dissemination, TNMU's low dependence on them avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 8.741, the institution presents a critical red flag, drastically leading the risk metrics in a country that is already highly compromised in this area (national Z-score of 2.716). This extreme value points to a systemic issue that requires immediate and decisive action. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system but also prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, fundamentally compromising research integrity.