| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.410 | 0.543 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.569 | 0.570 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
9.365 | 7.586 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.431 | 3.215 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.033 | -1.173 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.042 | -0.598 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.647 | -0.673 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.996 | 5.115 |
Tashkent State Agrarian University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.602 reflecting both significant strengths in governance and critical areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal policies and a strong foundation of research integrity. However, this performance is offset by significant-risk indicators in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, which point to systemic vulnerabilities that could undermine the credibility of its research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a strong national position in key thematic areas, most notably in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 8th in Uzbekistan), as well as in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Environmental Science. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks directly challenge universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. Practices that inflate impact through self-citation or fragment knowledge into redundant publications contradict the pursuit of genuine scientific advancement. By strategically addressing these vulnerabilities, Tashkent State Agrarian University can build upon its solid governance foundation to fully leverage its thematic strengths, ensuring its research contributions are both robust and reputable on a national and international scale.
The university demonstrates exemplary control in this area, with a Z-score of -1.410 that places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.543. This performance suggests the institution has successfully established internal governance that insulates it from risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the university's low rate indicates strong policies that prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that all declared affiliations are transparent and academically justified.
With a Z-score of -0.569, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile regarding retracted publications, effectively avoiding a medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.570). This result points to a robust preventive stance, suggesting the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. A high rate of retractions can indicate that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically; however, this university's performance suggests its pre-publication review processes are sound, protecting it from vulnerabilities in its integrity culture and ensuring a high standard of methodological rigor.
This indicator presents a critical challenge, with the university's Z-score of 9.365 exceeding the already significant national average of 7.586. This result functions as a global red flag, positioning the institution as a leader in risk within a country already highly compromised in this metric. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, these disproportionately high rates signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community, requiring urgent strategic intervention.
The university demonstrates relative containment in this area, with a medium-risk Z-score of 1.431 that is notably lower than the significant-risk national average of 3.215. Although risk signals are present, this indicates the institution operates with more order than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's moderate score suggests a need to strengthen information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid channeling work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby mitigating severe reputational risks and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.033 indicates a low level of risk, but it represents a slight divergence from the national context, which shows a very low-risk profile (Z-score: -1.173). This suggests the emergence of risk signals at the university that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. This indicator serves as a signal to proactively monitor authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' attributions, ensuring transparency and fairness.
With a medium-risk Z-score of 1.042, the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the low-risk national average of -0.598. This moderate deviation suggests a potential imbalance in research leadership. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. The current value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -0.647 for this indicator is statistically normal, aligning closely with the national average of -0.673. This low-risk level is as expected for an institution of its context and size, indicating no unusual activity. While extreme individual publication volumes can point to risks such as coercive authorship or imbalances between quantity and quality, the university's current profile does not suggest a systemic issue. It remains important to foster a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics, ensuring authorship reflects meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution demonstrates complete alignment with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.268 matching the country's average precisely. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's very low score confirms it avoids this risk, ensuring its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and maintains global visibility.
This indicator signals a significant risk, with the university's Z-score at 4.996. However, this value shows more control than the critical national average of 5.115, representing an attenuated alert. While the university is a global outlier, it is managing this issue slightly better than its national peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value is a warning that research practices may be prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a dynamic that distorts the scientific record and requires immediate attention.
