Odessa National Polytechnic University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Odessa National Polytechnic University presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside critical areas requiring immediate strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of 0.340, the institution demonstrates exceptional control over risks associated with authorship practices and affiliation management, outperforming national averages in areas such as Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. This robust governance is a significant asset. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant-level alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and, most critically, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), where the university's risk score is a global outlier. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the institution's mission of "Enhancing the intellectual potential of the nation," as they suggest a focus on publication volume over substantive scientific contribution, potentially isolating the university's impact and undermining the pursuit of genuine excellence. The university's recognized thematic strengths in Engineering, Energy, Computer Science, and Mathematics, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid foundation for growth. To fully leverage this potential and align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university prioritizes the implementation of advanced training and stricter quality control mechanisms focused on publication ethics and responsible citation, ensuring that its quantitative output reflects true intellectual leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.657, indicating a very low risk that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.785. This result demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to collaboration, where the absence of risk signals is consistent with the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's data shows no evidence of disproportionately high rates that could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a commendable adherence to conventional collaborative norms.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a low score like this indicates that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning well, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might suggest.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 3.001 is in the significant risk category, though it remains below the critical national average of 4.357. This presents an attenuated alert; while the university is a global outlier in this metric, its practices appear more controlled than the national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this high value warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny, leading to a risk of endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that a portion of the university's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 2.125 indicates a medium risk, which is slightly better than the national average of 2.278. This suggests a degree of differentiated management, where the institution is moderating a risk that appears to be common nationwide. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.219, the institution demonstrates a very low risk, performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.684. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation. The university's very low score confirms that its research output is free from these signals, suggesting that authorship is granted transparently and individual accountability is maintained, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.216 is in the low-risk category and is more favorable than the national average of -0.159. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's low, negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structurally sound and derived from its own intellectual leadership, demonstrating strong internal capacity rather than a reliance on strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies an almost complete absence of risk, performing even better than the very low national average of -1.115. This state of total operational silence indicates that the university's environment is free from the pressures that lead to hyperprolificacy. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's score confirms the absence of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.154). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance. In-house journals can be valuable, but excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's very low score indicates that its scientific production is consistently subjected to independent external peer review, thereby avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its research competes for global visibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 4.452 is a global red flag, indicating a critical risk level that significantly surpasses the already compromised national average of 2.716. This positions the university as a leader in this high-risk metric, amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, as evidenced by massive bibliographic overlap between publications. Such a high value suggests a systemic issue that distorts the scientific record and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge and posing a direct threat to research integrity.