| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.427 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.004 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.019 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.957 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.723 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.304 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.977 | 2.716 |
Zaporizhzhia National University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.411 reflecting a combination of exceptional governance in certain areas and significant vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in controlling hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and multiple affiliations, indicating robust internal policies that promote responsible conduct. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant risks, particularly an alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals, and medium-level alerts in institutional self-citation, impact dependency, and retracted output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university has established a recognized presence in thematic areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, especially those related to publication quality and citation patterns, directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university leverage its clear capacity for good governance to develop targeted strategies that address its primary vulnerabilities, thereby fostering a more balanced and resilient culture of scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.427, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.785. This demonstrates a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals not only aligns with but exceeds the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score indicates a conservative and transparent approach to declaring affiliations, suggesting that its collaborative practices are clear and not leveraged for artificial institutional gain, reflecting a strong adherence to ethical standards in academic representation.
With a Z-score of 0.004, the institution's rate of retracted publications is considerably lower than the national average of 0.056. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates risks that appear more common across the country. Retractions can signal a failure in pre-publication quality control or, conversely, a commitment to post-publication correction. In this context, the university's lower-than-average score indicates that its quality control mechanisms are likely more effective than its national peers, reducing the incidence of systemic errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and damage the institution's integrity culture.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 2.019, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, demonstrates relative containment compared to the critical national average of 4.357. This suggests that although the institution shows some signs of an 'echo chamber,' it operates with more control than the national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can inflate impact through endogamous validation. The university's score, while warranting attention, shows that it is successfully mitigating the more extreme national dynamics, though it should continue to encourage broader external engagement to ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.957 in this indicator, a figure that points to a significant risk and is notably higher than the national average of 2.278. This signals a pattern of risk accentuation, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities already present in the national system. 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 output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
For the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, the institution's Z-score is -0.723, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.684. This proximity indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's authorship practices are as expected for its context and size. This indicator is designed to detect potential author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability. The institution's low score confirms that its collaborative patterns are well within standard parameters, showing no evidence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research transparency.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.304 in this area, representing a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.159. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk related to scientific prestige being dependent and exogenous. The score invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -1.413, even lower than the already minimal national average of -1.115. This complete absence of risk signals indicates exceptionally robust governance. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as extreme publication volumes can challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's score confirms that it fosters a research environment free from dynamics like coercive authorship or metric-driven publication, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a pattern of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where the national average is 0.154. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the national tendency toward publishing in its own journals. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns and risks academic endogamy. The university's very low score demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive international channels and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.977, a medium-risk value that nonetheless shows relative containment when compared to the significant national average of 2.716. This indicates that while some signals of data fragmentation exist, the university operates with more order than the national system. This practice, also known as 'salami slicing,' involves dividing a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The university's ability to keep this indicator at a moderate level, in a context of high national risk, suggests its internal controls are partially effective but could be strengthened to better promote the publication of comprehensive, significant new knowledge.
