Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 2.104 reflecting both significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas such as intellectual leadership, authorship practices, and the use of institutional journals, indicating robust internal governance. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its prominent national standing, particularly in its core thematic areas of Arts and Humanities (ranked 3rd in Ukraine) and Social Sciences (ranked 4th in Ukraine), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by critical-level risks in institutional self-citation and, most notably, an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals. These practices directly challenge the University's mission to "disseminate knowledge" and foster "innovative thinking," as they suggest a reliance on insular validation and low-quality channels that limit global impact and credibility. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence, the University is advised to urgently address these vulnerabilities, leveraging its clear strengths in governance to reform its publication and citation strategies, thereby ensuring its intellectual potential is recognized through globally accepted standards of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score of -1.338 for this indicator is well below the national average of -0.785, demonstrating a very low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard. This absence of risk signals indicates a stable and well-defined affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's controlled approach suggests that affiliations are managed with transparency, effectively avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” and reinforcing a culture of clear accountability.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.455, the institution's rate of retractions is moderately elevated and notably higher than the national average of 0.056. This indicates that the University is more prone to the factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average can suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms are under strain. This heightened value serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, signaling that a qualitative review of its research oversight processes may be necessary.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University exhibits a significantly high rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: 5.328), a value that not only represents a critical risk on its own but also surpasses the already high national average (Z-score: 4.357). This dynamic suggests the institution is a key driver of this high-risk practice within the country. Such a pattern warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external validation. This creates a substantial risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is magnified by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is critically high, with a Z-score of 10.649 that dramatically amplifies the moderate risk already present at the national level (Z-score: 2.278). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. This extremely high value indicates that a significant portion of the University's research is being channeled through outlets that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.129), a positive signal that is consistent with the low-risk profile observed nationally (Z-score: -0.684). This indicates that authorship practices are well-calibrated and transparent. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the University effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.

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

The University shows an exceptionally strong profile in this area, with a Z-score of -3.619 compared to the national average of -0.159. This score indicates that the impact of research where it holds a leadership role is significantly higher than its overall publication impact, signaling a high degree of scientific autonomy and internal capacity. Unlike institutions that may depend on external partners for prestige, these results demonstrate that the University's excellence is structural and endogenous, stemming from its own intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

While the risk associated with hyperprolific authors is very low (Z-score: -0.917) and well within the national norm (Z-score: -1.115), the institution's score is slightly higher than the country average. This represents a minimal signal, or 'residual noise,' in an otherwise secure context. Although not an immediate concern, it suggests that the institution is the first to show any activity in this area. It serves as a reminder to maintain vigilance against practices where extreme publication volumes could challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and potentially mask issues like coercive authorship or a lack of substantive participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University demonstrates a very low reliance on its own institutional journals (Z-score: -0.268), a practice that starkly contrasts with the moderate risk observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.154). This indicates a deliberate and effective strategy of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over internal channels, the University mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring its scientific output is validated competitively and enhancing its global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

Although the institution shows a medium level of risk for redundant publications (Z-score: 1.221), its score is notably lower than the significant risk level seen across the country (Z-score: 2.716). This demonstrates a degree of relative containment, suggesting that while the practice of 'salami slicing' exists, the University manages it with more order than the national average. This indicates an opportunity to further strengthen policies against the artificial inflation of productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units, a practice that can distort scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system.