National University of Water and Environmental Engineering

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Water and Environmental Engineering presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.523 reflecting both significant operational strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship and affiliation practices, with very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, indicating a culture of transparency and accountability. However, this is offset by significant risks in Institutional Self-Citation and publication in Discontinued Journals, which suggest challenges related to academic insularity and the selection of dissemination channels. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Physics and Astronomy (ranked 2nd in Ukraine), Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (4th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (5th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these high-risk indicators directly challenge the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. A reliance on self-validation and low-quality journals undermines the credibility of its excellent research and its contribution to the global knowledge commons. The university is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these specific risks, thereby ensuring its thematic leadership is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.191, positioning it well below the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a commendable absence of risk signals in an area where the country already shows a low-risk profile. The data suggests that the university's affiliation patterns are highly consistent and transparent, aligning with national standards of good practice. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate provides strong assurance against strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a clear and well-governed approach to academic partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests the presence of robust institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly lower than the national context points to effective pre-publication supervision and a strong integrity culture. This performance indicates that potential methodological flaws or malpractice are being identified and corrected internally, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a higher national retraction rate and reinforcing the credibility of the university's research output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 4.567 is at a significant risk level, slightly exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This finding constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but actively leads a critical risk dynamic present within the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of its citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution registers a Z-score of 2.974, a significant risk level that markedly surpasses the country's medium-risk average of 2.278. This pattern indicates a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the investment of resources in 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.120, the institution shows a very low risk, which is even more controlled than the low-risk national average of -0.684. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are common, a low rate is a positive indicator of good governance. The university's performance suggests that it effectively avoids author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions and steering clear of practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.180 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.159. This score indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A positive gap where overall impact is higher than the impact of institution-led research can signal a risk to sustainability. The data suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners and collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in partnerships that may not be building long-term, independent research strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, a very low risk level that is even lower than the country's already very low average of -1.115. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is exemplary even within a healthy national context. This indicator is a strong positive signal, suggesting a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The complete lack of hyperprolific authors indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low-risk profile, which represents a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, demonstrating that it does not rely on internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, thereby upholding competitive validation standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.177 corresponds to a medium risk level, indicating a degree of relative containment when compared to the significant risk level of the national average (2.716). Although risk signals are present, this suggests the university operates with more control than its national context. The score still alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing'. While the institution is managing this national-level problem more effectively than its peers, the existing risk warrants attention to ensure that research output prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.