| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.801 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.005 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
9.979 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.754 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.171 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.253 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.390 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
7.738 | 2.965 |
Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology presents a profile of stark contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 1.756 reflecting both areas of exemplary scientific governance and significant, systemic vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable strength in maintaining intellectual leadership, avoiding hyper-authorship, and ensuring its research undergoes external validation rather than relying on internal journals. These positive signals are, however, overshadowed by critical risks in four key areas: an extremely high rate of institutional self-citation, a concerning volume of redundant publications (salami slicing), a significant rate of output in discontinued journals, and an unusually high rate of multiple affiliations. Academically, the university shows strong national positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Energy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. The identified integrity risks, however, directly threaten to undermine the credibility of these thematic strengths. Practices that suggest impact inflation and questionable publication strategies are fundamentally at odds with any institutional mission based on academic excellence and social responsibility, potentially compromising the university's long-term reputation. A strategic and immediate review of publication, citation, and affiliation policies is therefore recommended to align its operational integrity with its demonstrated academic potential.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.801, a value that indicates a significant risk level and starkly contrasts with the national average of 0.401. This suggests the university is not only participating in but amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate signals a potential strategic pattern of "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. This practice poses a considerable reputational risk, as it can be perceived by the international community as a departure from transparent and merit-based academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.005, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that is notably more robust than the national average of 0.228. This favorable comparison suggests a high degree of institutional resilience. It indicates that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This low rate is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected prior to publication, reflecting responsible and rigorous scientific oversight.
The university's Z-score of 9.979 is a critical red flag, positioning it as a global outlier even within a national context (Z-score: 2.800) where this practice is already a significant issue. This extreme value goes far beyond the natural continuity of research lines and points toward a severe risk of scientific isolation. Such a pattern suggests the formation of an academic "echo chamber," where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic of endogamous impact inflation seriously compromises the perception of its academic influence, suggesting it may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 3.754 represents a significant risk, markedly amplifying the moderate-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 1.015). This high proportion of publications in journals that have ceased operation constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial part of the university's scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality publication practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.171 is in the very low-risk category, favorably comparing to the country's already low-risk average of -0.488. This demonstrates a commendable adherence to authorship standards that align with international best practices. The absence of risk signals in this area points to a culture of transparency and clear accountability, where author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions. This low-profile consistency reinforces the credibility of the institution's collaborative research efforts.
With a Z-score of -2.253, the institution shows an exceptionally strong and positive profile, effectively isolating itself from the moderate risk observed nationally (Z-score: 0.389). A low or negative score in this indicator is highly desirable, as it signifies that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and not dependent on external partners. This result points to a high degree of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, suggesting that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, rather than a reflection of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of 0.390 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.570). This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme publication volumes than its national peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, this signal warrants a review of the balance between quantity and quality. It alerts to potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is firmly in the very low-risk range, demonstrating a preventive isolation from the national tendency toward publishing in institutional journals (country Z-score: 0.979). This result is a strong indicator of a commitment to global scientific standards. By predominantly choosing external, independent dissemination channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its research undergoes rigorous, unbiased peer review, thereby enhancing its international visibility and scientific credibility.
With an extremely high Z-score of 7.738, the institution is a global red flag for this indicator, leading the risk metrics in a country already compromised by this practice (country Z-score: 2.965). This value points to a systemic practice of fragmenting coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications alerts to a distortion of the available scientific evidence and an overburdening of the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
