Zaporizhzhya State Medical University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Zaporizhzhya State Medical University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by a low overall risk score (0.008) and notable strengths in operational governance. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices, with very low risk signals for multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals. Furthermore, it shows significant resilience, maintaining lower risk levels than the national average in areas like retractions, self-citation, and redundant output. Key areas for strategic attention include a medium-risk dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact, and moderate signals related to institutional self-citation and redundant publications. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (Top 6 in Ukraine), Medicine (Top 8), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 15). While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, the identified risks—especially the gap in leadership impact—could challenge the universal academic goals of fostering sovereign excellence and sustainable social contribution. By addressing these medium-risk vulnerabilities, the university can solidify its integrity framework, ensuring its research leadership is not only impactful but also structurally sound and self-sufficient.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.539, which is significantly below the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area surpasses even the low-risk standard observed nationally. This demonstrates that the university's affiliation practices are well-governed and transparent, showing no signs of strategic manipulation to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can sometimes be used to artificially boost rankings or visibility.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider national context. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication quality control. Unlike a high rate which could suggest recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, this score indicates that the university's integrity culture is successfully preventing systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 1.880 places it in the medium-risk category, a level that warrants attention but also demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk score of 4.357. This indicates that while the institution shows some tendency towards forming scientific 'echo chambers,' it is successfully managing to operate with more order than the national average. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this medium value serves as a warning against the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.180 is classified as medium risk, similar to the national level, which has a score of 2.278. However, the university's significantly lower score points to a differentiated management approach. It suggests that the institution is more effectively moderating the risks of publishing in low-quality venues, a challenge that appears more common across the country. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that while not immune, the university is less exposed to the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' practices than its national peers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.464, the institution is in a low-risk category, as is the national average of -0.684. However, the university's score is slightly higher, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while authorship practices are generally sound, there are faint signals that warrant review before they potentially escalate. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' a rising rate of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This score serves as a proactive signal to ensure all collaborations are legitimate and to guard against the emergence of 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 2.647 (medium risk), which represents a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.159. This discrepancy highlights a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to impact dependency. The wide positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is heavily reliant on external partners, while the impact of research where it exercises intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category and is notably lower than the country's already low score of -1.115. This signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator. The complete absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, strongly suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It indicates that the university's environment does not foster practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' where extreme publication volumes might compromise the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

A very low Z-score of -0.268 places the institution in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.154. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which mitigates conflicts of interest and avoids the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 2.008 is in the medium-risk category, but it reflects a situation of relative containment compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. This suggests that although risk signals for redundant publication exist, the institution operates with more control than the national trend. A high value in this indicator typically alerts to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple articles to inflate productivity. The university's score, while a concern, indicates it is successfully attenuating the more severe forms of this practice that may be prevalent in the national system.