National University Yuri Kondratyuk Poltava Polytechnic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University Yuri Kondratyuk Poltava Polytechnic presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, counterbalanced by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.225, the institution demonstrates robust governance in several key areas, particularly in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in its own journals, indicating a solid foundation for organic and ethical research growth. However, this positive baseline is critically challenged by a significant rate of institutional self-citation and medium-risk levels in redundant output and publication in discontinued journals. These issues suggest a tendency towards academic insularity that could undermine the university's demonstrated thematic strengths, such as its high national ranking in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked #2 in Ukraine) and Energy (ranked #8 in Ukraine), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, these integrity risks conflict with the universal academic mission of achieving excellence and social responsibility through globally recognized and validated research. To fully capitalize on its research potential, the university is advised to implement targeted policies that encourage external validation and international collaboration, thereby ensuring its operational practices align with its clear capacity for scientific leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a very low risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.187, which is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.785. This result demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards, indicating that the university's affiliation practices are clear and well-managed. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the absence of any risk signals here suggests that the institution effectively avoids strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of transparent academic contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the university maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate indicates that the university's pre-publication review processes are likely robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that would signal a systemic vulnerability in its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 5.700 for institutional self-citation is a critical red flag, significantly exceeding the already high national average of 4.357. This finding indicates that the institution not only participates in but actively amplifies a concerning practice prevalent in the national system. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of scientific isolation and the formation of an 'echo chamber.' This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, creating a risk of endogamous impact inflation that warrants an urgent and deep integrity assessment.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a medium risk level with a Z-score of 1.973, which is notably lower than the national average of 2.278. This indicates a degree of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score constitutes a significant alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and highlighting a need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -0.985, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.684. This low-risk indicator suggests that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with greater control than its national peers. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation or honorary authorship. The university's conservative score suggests it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices that dilute individual accountability, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution demonstrates a very low-risk Z-score of -2.330, which is significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.159. This excellent result reflects a strong alignment with national integrity standards and points to a healthy, sustainable research model. A wide positive gap in this indicator often signals that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's very low score indicates the opposite: its scientific impact is driven by research where its own members exercise leadership, confirming that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and structural strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the university shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -1.115. This state of 'total operational silence' is exemplary and points to a well-balanced academic environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's score indicates that it effectively prioritizes scientific quality over raw metrics, fostering an environment where authorship is tied to genuine participation and the integrity of the scientific record is protected.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university shows a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy seen in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's low reliance on such channels suggests its researchers are consistently facing independent external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of their work, rather than using internal journals as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.176 places it at a medium risk level for redundant output, but this is within a context of relative containment, as it is significantly lower than the critical national average of 2.716. Although risk signals are present, this indicates the university operates with more control than the national trend. A high value in this indicator typically alerts to 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's medium score serves as a warning that this practice may be occurring, potentially distorting the scientific evidence base and prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge, and thus warrants closer monitoring.