V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University presents a highly polarized scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.472 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining intellectual leadership, as evidenced by a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research. Furthermore, it shows exemplary control over hyperprolific authorship and the use of institutional journals, suggesting a culture that avoids academic endogamy and prioritizes quality. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in key areas such as Medicine, Physics and Astronomy, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Arts and Humanities. However, these achievements are severely undermined by critical risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), which exceed already high national averages. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these practices directly threaten any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility, as they prioritize metric inflation over the generation of robust, externally validated knowledge. To secure its long-term reputation and align its practices with its research strengths, it is recommended that the university implement targeted strategies to mitigate these specific high-risk behaviors while leveraging its demonstrated governance capabilities as a model for reform.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.010, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard of good practice. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's score suggests that its affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed, reflecting genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.164, the institution's rate of retracted output is at a medium-risk level and notably higher than the national average of 0.056. This suggests a high exposure to risk factors in this area, indicating that the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere, indicating that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor could be systemic issues requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 5.196, a critically high value that significantly exceeds the country's already high average of 4.357. This result constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in this risk metric within a national system that is already highly compromised. While some self-citation reflects the continuity of research, this disproportionately high rate signals a severe risk of scientific isolation and the formation of an 'echo chamber.' It strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community, warning of endogamous impact inflation that requires urgent strategic intervention.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a medium-risk Z-score of 1.677 for publications in discontinued journals, a figure that is notably better than the national average of 2.278. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the university appears to be moderating a risk that is more common throughout the country. Although a medium-risk score still warrants attention, the lower value compared to the national context suggests that the institution exercises greater due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This proactive stance helps mitigate severe reputational risks and avoids wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices more effectively than its national peers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.831, the institution maintains a low-risk, prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.684. This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with greater control than the average in its environment. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's favorable score suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution demonstrates a key strategic strength with a Z-score of -0.859, indicating a very low-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its own leadership, which is significantly better than the country's low-risk score of -0.159. This low-profile consistency signals that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from its own internal capacity. A wide positive gap often suggests that an institution's excellence metrics are dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This excellent result confirms that the university's impact is driven by its own research agenda, a hallmark of a mature and scientifically independent institution.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even more favorable than the country's very low-risk score of -1.115. This signifies a total operational silence on this risk front, with an absence of signals that is even below the national average. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's outstanding score indicates a healthy institutional balance between productivity and quality, effectively preventing practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.154. This demonstrates a preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent peer review. The university's excellent score indicates that it prioritizes external validation and global visibility for its research, avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without competitive scrutiny.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 3.622, a critically high value that is significantly worse than the country's already compromised average of 2.716. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the university leads in this risk metric within a national context facing a systemic challenge. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This extremely high value alerts to a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and posing a severe threat to the institution's scientific credibility.