Ahmet Yesevi University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ahmet Yesevi University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a significant divergence between areas of exemplary practice and critical vulnerabilities, reflected in an overall risk score of 3.326. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in managing authorship practices, with very low risk signals for hyperprolific authors and output in its own journals. Thematically, the university excels within Kazakhstan, achieving top national rankings in key areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences (3rd), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3rd), and Energy (6th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this academic strength is contrasted by severe risks in publication practices, specifically concerning the high rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to foster "scientific power of thought" and "social responsibility," as they suggest that institutional research outputs may not consistently meet the standards of rigor and quality required to make a meaningful "contribution to scientific and social life." To fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its thematic leadership to implement robust, targeted integrity policies focused on enhancing pre-publication quality control and promoting due diligence in the selection of publication venues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.248, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.015. This indicates that the university's processes are well-controlled and less susceptible to the risks associated with this practice compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's lower-than-average rate suggests a clear and well-regulated approach to researcher affiliations, effectively avoiding signals that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 6.241, the university's rate of retracted output is substantially higher than the national average of 0.548, indicating an accentuation of vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a serious warning that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond individual cases, this Z-score alerts to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university shows a high exposure to risks associated with institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of 1.782 that is slightly above the national average of 1.618. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to developing 'echo chambers' where its work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator represents a global red flag for the institution. Its Z-score of 7.610 dramatically exceeds the already high national average of 2.749, positioning the university as a leader in this critical risk practice within a compromised national context. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to authorship, with a Z-score of -0.878 that is lower than the national average of -0.649. This indicates that the university's authorship practices are more rigorous than the national standard. The data shows no signs of author list inflation outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, suggesting a culture that values individual accountability and transparency over practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.

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

The university demonstrates effective management in moderating its dependency on external collaborations for impact, with a Z-score of 0.051, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.199. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's contained score suggests that its scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, reflecting a healthy balance between internal research capacity and external partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

In this domain, the institution shows total operational silence, with a Z-score of -1.413 indicating a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.980. This exemplary result suggests a healthy academic environment where the balance between quantity and quality is maintained. There is no evidence of extreme individual publication volumes that could challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' and reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's practices align perfectly with the national environment, showing integrity synchrony with a Z-score of -0.268, identical to the country average. This indicates a complete alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The data confirms that the institution does not excessively depend on its in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, fostering global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution displays a high exposure to the risk of redundant publications, with a Z-score of 1.539 that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.793. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This elevated rate is a warning sign that the prioritization of volume over significant new knowledge could be distorting the scientific evidence produced and overburdening the peer review system.