| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.701 | 0.543 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | 0.570 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
6.473 | 7.586 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.733 | 3.215 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.306 | -1.173 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.578 | -0.598 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.673 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.711 | 5.115 |
The Tashkent Institute of Chemical Technology (TICT) presents a profile of notable contrasts, achieving an overall integrity score of 0.670. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in authorship governance, with exceptionally low-risk indicators for hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. These areas suggest a robust culture of accountability and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities in three key areas: a significant rate of institutional self-citation, a high volume of output in discontinued journals, and a concerning rate of redundant publications. These weaknesses, while partially reflecting a broader national trend, directly challenge the institution's mission "to serve the interests of society... through the transfer and continuous development of advanced knowledge... and innovation." The reliance on endogamous validation and low-quality publication channels undermines the effective transfer of knowledge and compromises the spirit of innovation. Despite these challenges, TICT maintains a strong national standing in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Chemistry and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. By strategically addressing the identified integrity risks, TICT can protect its reputational capital, ensure its research genuinely serves society, and fully align its operational practices with its core mission of excellence.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.701 compared to the national average of 0.543, the Tashkent Institute of Chemical Technology demonstrates effective control over affiliation practices. The institution shows considerable resilience, maintaining a low-risk profile in an environment where multiple affiliations are a more common, medium-risk phenomenon. This suggests that the institution's governance mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic pressures or practices observed elsewhere in the country, ensuring that affiliations remain a reflection of legitimate collaboration rather than a strategy for credit inflation.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.202, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.570. This differential indicates a strong institutional capacity to manage research quality. While the national context shows a higher propensity for retractions, the institute's performance suggests its pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust, effectively filtering out potential issues. This low rate points towards a culture where errors are likely handled responsibly through correction, rather than escalating to systemic failures that necessitate retraction, thereby safeguarding its scientific record.
A significant risk is evident in this area, with an institutional Z-score of 6.473. While this is part of a critical national dynamic, reflected in the country's average of 7.586, the rate is alarmingly high. This performance suggests that although the institution operates with slightly more control than the national average, it is still deeply affected by a standard crisis of academic endogamy. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a serious risk of inflating the institution's perceived impact through internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 2.733 in this indicator, a critical alert that is symptomatic of a wider national issue, where the average score is 3.215. Although the institute's rate is slightly attenuated compared to the country's average, it remains at a level that demands urgent attention. This high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international standards suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates that valuable research resources may be wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets, compromising the integrity and visibility of its scientific contributions.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.306, which is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -1.173. This result signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation. The data suggests that authorship lists at the institution are managed with exemplary rigor, clearly distinguishing between legitimate, large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary authorship. This operational silence in a low-risk environment points to a deeply embedded culture of transparency and individual accountability in research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.578 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.598. This gap suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to risks associated with collaborative dependency. A positive value of this magnitude indicates that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be overly reliant on external partners, with a significant portion of its high-impact work not being driven by its own intellectual leadership. This creates a potential sustainability risk, prompting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, which is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national standard (-0.673). The complete absence of risk signals in this area is a strong positive indicator. It suggests that the institutional culture promotes a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively preventing dynamics such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of publication volume over meaningful scientific contribution. This low-profile consistency reinforces the integrity of the institution's research environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect alignment within a context of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony indicates a shared commitment, both at the institutional and national levels, to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and enhancing the global visibility and credibility of its research. This practice demonstrates a clear preference for competitive validation over potentially biased internal channels.
This indicator presents a significant risk, with an institutional Z-score of 2.711. This value is part of a critical national trend, where the average is an even higher 5.115. While the institution's score is an attenuated alert, showing more control than the national average, it is still high enough to be a major concern. This suggests a prevalent practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a high rate of bibliographic overlap not only distorts the scientific record but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a culture that may prioritize publication volume over the generation of significant, novel knowledge.
