| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.288 | 0.543 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.126 | 0.570 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.341 | 7.586 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.002 | 3.215 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.026 | -1.173 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.661 | -0.598 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.673 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.889 | 5.115 |
Karshi State University demonstrates a developing profile in scientific integrity, characterized by notable strengths in authorial practices and a commendable detachment from certain systemic risks prevalent in its national context. With an overall score of 0.534, the institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Multiple Affiliations, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. However, significant vulnerabilities require strategic intervention, most critically the high Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, alongside medium-risk signals in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output. These challenges contrast with the university's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including its rankings in Mathematics (13th), Physics and Astronomy (14th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (16th) within Uzbekistan, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly those related to publication in low-quality channels, could undermine the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these integrity gaps, Karshi State University can better protect its reputation and ensure its strong disciplinary contributions translate into sustainable, globally recognized impact.
With a Z-score of -1.288, Karshi State University shows an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, positioning itself in stark contrast to the national average of 0.543. This result suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled profile in this area indicates a culture of clear and transparent attribution, ensuring that institutional credit is assigned with precision and integrity, a practice that sets a high standard within its national context.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 0.126, a moderate value that reflects more effective management compared to the national average of 0.570. This indicates a differentiated approach to risk, where the university moderates a challenge that is more common across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly above the norm can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. Although the university’s rate is lower than its peers, this medium-risk signal still points to a potential vulnerability in its integrity culture, indicating that a qualitative review of supervision and methodological rigor is necessary to prevent recurring malpractice.
Karshi State University presents a Z-score of 1.341 in institutional self-citation, a medium-risk signal that demonstrates relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 7.586. This suggests that while some risk of endogamy exists, the institution operates with more order and external validation than is typical for the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can create 'echo chambers' and inflate impact through internal dynamics rather than global recognition. The university's ability to keep this indicator below the national crisis level is commendable, yet the existing signal warrants attention to ensure its research influence is built on broad external scrutiny.
The university's Z-score of 3.002 for output in discontinued journals represents a significant risk, mirroring a critical national situation where the average is 3.215. This constitutes an attenuated alert; although the institution is a global outlier, it shows slightly more control than the national average. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and suggests an urgent need to implement information literacy programs to prevent the misallocation of research efforts and resources.
With a Z-score of -1.026, the institution shows a low-risk signal for hyper-authored output, which represents a slight divergence from the national average of -1.173, where such signals are virtually absent. This suggests the emergence of minor risk activity that is not characteristic of the rest of the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their appearance in other contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's score, though low, warrants monitoring to ensure authorship practices remain transparent and are based on genuine collaboration rather than 'honorary' or political attributions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.661 for this indicator, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.598. This shows that the university is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This score suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners, with its excellence metrics resulting more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, a point that merits strategic reflection.
Karshi State University demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a very low risk of hyperprolific authors, a figure that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.673. This low-profile consistency reflects an environment where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to coercive authorship or other integrity risks. The university's complete lack of such signals suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, where productivity is not pursued at the expense of scientific rigor.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This total alignment indicates a shared commitment to avoiding the risks associated with academic endogamy. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and allow production to bypass independent peer review. The institution's minimal engagement with this practice demonstrates a strong preference for global dissemination channels, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive processes and achieves international visibility.
With a Z-score of 1.889, the university shows a medium-risk level for redundant output, a figure that indicates relative containment of a practice that is a significant vulnerability at the national level (Z-score of 5.115). This suggests the institution operates with more order than the national average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While the university is not immune to this practice, its ability to moderate this risk points to better internal oversight, though continued attention is needed to ensure that the pursuit of volume does not compromise the generation of significant new knowledge.
