Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University presents a profile of notable strengths juxtaposed with critical integrity risks that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.828, the institution demonstrates a robust performance in several key areas, particularly in its very low reliance on institutional journals and prudent management of hyper-authorship and retractions, outperforming national trends. These strengths are complemented by its recognized academic positioning in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is severely undermined by significant red flags in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), where the university not only reflects but amplifies critical national vulnerabilities. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, such high-risk indicators directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. Inflating impact through self-referential loops and fragmenting knowledge for volume contradicts the pursuit of genuine scientific contribution. The university is therefore encouraged to leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted interventions that address these weaknesses, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its academic potential and its implicit commitment to rigorous, transparent, and impactful science.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.630, slightly higher than the national average of -0.785. This value suggests an incipient vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, and the current rate remains low, the slight upward deviation from the national norm indicates that the institution shows early signals of this activity. This warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution shows a very low rate of retractions, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest corrections. However, this institution's low rate indicates that its pre-publication quality control and supervision processes are robust, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a higher retraction rate and protecting its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 5.229 for this indicator is critically high, positioning it as a leader in this risk metric within a national context that is already significantly compromised (country average: 4.357). This situation constitutes a global red flag. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, a value this high warns of severe scientific isolation and the potential for an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation suggests that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, requiring urgent intervention.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 2.333 is slightly above the national average of 2.278, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This suggests the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates 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 exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.856, which is lower than the national average of -0.684. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's controlled rate in this area is a positive sign that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of -0.560, which is well below the national average of -0.159, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing its research leadership. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's negative score indicates a healthy dynamic where the impact of its internally-led research is strong, suggesting that its scientific prestige is structural and results from genuine internal capabilities, not just strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.048 reflects a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -1.115 (very low risk). This indicates that the university is beginning to show signals of risk activity that are not apparent in the rest of the country. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator's value, though still low, serves as an early warning of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to possible risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation that should be monitored.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates exceptional control in this area with a Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids a risk dynamic prevalent at the national level. In-house journals can create conflicts of interest, but by not over-relying on them, the institution reinforces its commitment to independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility of its research and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, fostering a culture of competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 5.555, the rate of redundant output is exceptionally high, significantly exceeding the already critical national average of 2.716. This finding represents a global red flag, indicating that the institution is a primary driver of this risk practice in its national system. While citing previous work is necessary, the massive bibliographic overlap suggested by this score points directly to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity distorts the scientific record and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An immediate review of publication and authorship policies is strongly recommended.