| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.303 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.784 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
6.691 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.594 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.098 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.243 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.698 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.394 | 2.965 |
Cherepovets State University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.549 reflecting both significant strengths in governance and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as multiple affiliations, use of institutional journals, and avoidance of redundant publications, indicating robust internal policies that effectively filter out certain national risk trends. However, these strengths are overshadowed by significant red flags in institutional self-citation and a notable gap in research impact leadership, which suggest a pattern of scientific isolation and dependency on external collaboration for prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. The identified risks, particularly the insular citation practices, directly challenge the university's mission "to create an intellectual environment that contributes to social and economic development." True innovation and development thrive on external validation and global integration, not on internal echo chambers. To fully realize its mission, the university should leverage its proven governance capabilities to implement targeted strategies that foster greater international collaboration, promote independent impact, and ensure its research practices align with the highest standards of global scientific excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.303, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.401. This result indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics commonly observed in its national environment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The university's very low score suggests a clear and well-managed policy on affiliations, ensuring that credit is assigned with transparency and integrity.
The university's Z-score for retracted output is 0.784, a value that, while within the medium risk band, is notably higher than the national average of 0.228. This suggests a high exposure to this risk factor, indicating that the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This deviation suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university exhibits a critically high Z-score of 6.691 for institutional self-citation, a figure that dramatically exceeds the already significant national average of 2.800. This metric constitutes a global red flag, positioning the institution as a leading outlier in a country already compromised by this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, these disproportionately high rates signal a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This extreme value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score for output in discontinued journals is 0.594, which is lower than the national average of 1.015, even though both fall within the medium risk category. This indicates a capacity for differentiated management, where the institution appears to moderate a risk that is more common or pronounced across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university’s relative control suggests a more discerning approach than its peers, but the presence of this risk still indicates a need to reinforce information literacy and selection criteria to completely avoid channeling resources into media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
With a Z-score of -1.098, the university maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored output, well below the national average of -0.488. This demonstrates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's low score suggests that its authorship practices are generally well-aligned with disciplinary norms, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship.
The university shows a Z-score of 3.243 in this indicator, a significant value that sharply accentuates the vulnerability present in the national system, where the average is a moderate 0.389. This wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result invites deep reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its real internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, potentially hindering the development of its own innovative research lines.
The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.698, indicating a prudent profile that is more controlled than the national average of -0.570. This suggests the institution manages its processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score indicates that it is effectively mitigating the risks associated with this behavior, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing scientific integrity over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.979. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, whereby the institution avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. In-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, but excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's minimal reliance on these channels indicates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output and avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The university has a Z-score of -0.394 for redundant output, placing it in the low-risk category. This performance is particularly noteworthy when contrasted with the significant-risk national average of 2.965. This discrepancy shows that the institution acts as an effective filter, successfully functioning as a firewall against national risk practices in this area. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score is a strong positive signal, indicating that its research culture prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over the distortion of scientific evidence for metric gain.
