Poltava State Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The overall score of -0.062 indicates a balanced institutional profile for Poltava State Medical University, characterized by significant strengths in research governance coexisting with specific areas of vulnerability that require strategic attention. The University demonstrates exemplary control over authorship practices, with very low risk in hyperprolificacy and multiple affiliations, and avoids the pitfalls of academic endogamy through minimal use of institutional journals. These strengths are foundational to its notable academic positioning, particularly in Medicine (ranked 10th in Ukraine) and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (16th in Ukraine), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is contrasted by a significant risk in institutional self-citation and a medium risk related to the gap in research impact leadership and redundant publications. These vulnerabilities could challenge the institution's pursuit of global excellence and social responsibility, as they suggest an internal focus that may limit external validation and impact. A strategic focus on broadening collaborative networks and reinforcing quality-over-quantity publication policies will be crucial to align its operational integrity fully with its academic strengths.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.645, which is well below the national average of -0.785. This indicates a strong alignment with national standards of research integrity, showing even greater control than its peers. The complete absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the University's affiliations are managed with transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit; the University's low score reflects a healthy and legitimate approach to researcher mobility and collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.005, the institution maintains a low-risk level, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, the University's low rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher score might suggest. This performance points to a solid culture of integrity and methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution presents a Z-score of 4.482, a value that not only indicates a significant risk but also positions it slightly above the already critical national average of 4.357. This situation constitutes a global red flag, suggesting the University is a leading contributor to a high-risk dynamic prevalent across the country. A disproportionately high rate of self-citation signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation and creates a critical risk of an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, leading to endogamous impact inflation. This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices to ensure genuine scholarly impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a low Z-score of -0.196, a figure that stands in stark positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 2.278. This gap highlights a clear institutional resilience, indicating that the University's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication venues, thereby avoiding a risk prevalent at the national level. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert, but the University's low rate shows it is effectively protecting its reputation and resources from predatory or low-quality practices. This suggests a high level of information literacy and a commitment to publishing in channels that meet international ethical and quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.526 is within the low-risk band, similar to the national average of -0.684. However, its score is slightly higher than the country's, pointing to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines. The minor elevation in this metric suggests a need for proactive review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and any potential trend towards 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 1.571, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.159. This suggests the University is more sensitive than its national peers to a specific risk factor: a dependency on external partners for generating impact. A wide positive gap, as seen here, signals a potential sustainability risk, where the institution's overall scientific prestige may be more reliant on its role in collaborations than on the impact of research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships, highlighting an opportunity to strengthen its own research leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is firmly in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the already low national average of -1.115. This result signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, confirming an exemplary balance between productivity and research quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The complete absence of such signals at the University indicates a healthy research environment where authorship is assigned based on real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.154). This preventive isolation demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. While in-house journals can be valuable, an excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy. The University's minimal reliance on such channels ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, avoiding the use of internal 'fast tracks' and reinforcing the competitive, merit-based validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution registers a medium-risk Z-score of 0.699, which, while indicating the presence of risk signals, demonstrates relative containment compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. This suggests that although some level of redundant publication exists, the University operates with more control than the national trend. This indicator alerts to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity, a practice that distorts scientific evidence. The University's ability to keep this risk at a medium level in a highly compromised environment is commendable, but the existing signal warrants a review of publication guidelines to further encourage the dissemination of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.