| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.903 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.249 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.524 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.402 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.023 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.284 | 2.716 |
O.M. Beketov National University of Urban Economy demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in authorship practices and a notable capacity to insulate itself from some of the more severe risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's key areas of excellence include exceptionally low-risk indicators for the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Multiple Affiliations, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by areas requiring strategic attention, particularly a significant risk level in Institutional Self-Citation and medium-level alerts for publishing in discontinued journals and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic performance is in Physics and Astronomy, where it holds a top-10 national ranking. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—especially those related to academic endogamy and the use of low-quality publication channels—could undermine any mission centered on achieving global research excellence and fulfilling social responsibility. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance, the university is well-positioned to develop targeted interventions that will mitigate these vulnerabilities and further solidify its reputation for scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.903, which indicates a very low risk and is consistent with the national context's low-risk Z-score of -0.785. This alignment suggests that the university's affiliation practices are in sync with national standards, showing no signs of risk. The absence of disproportionately high rates of multiple affiliations confirms that the institution's collaborative patterns are transparent and do not suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and legitimate approach to research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the national average's medium-risk Z-score of 0.056. This suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more common across the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that could damage the institution's integrity culture and signal a systemic failure in its scientific oversight.
The institution's Z-score of 3.249 is a significant risk alert, although it is comparatively lower than the critical national average of 4.357. This indicates that while the university is situated within a national system prone to high self-citation, it manages to maintain slightly more control than its peers. Nevertheless, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation. It warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may be validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, creating a risk of endogamous impact inflation where academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The university shows a medium-risk Z-score of 2.524, which is slightly higher than the national average of 2.278. This value suggests the institution is more exposed than its peers to the risks associated with publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This indicator suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, posing a reputational risk and highlighting a need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.402 is in the low-risk category, but it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.684. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While the current level does not indicate widespread issues, it serves as an early signal to ensure that authorship lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions. It is crucial to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of 0.023, the institution exhibits a medium-level risk, deviating moderately from the national average of -0.159, which sits in the low-risk category. This gap suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its citation impact. A positive gap, where overall impact is higher than the impact of institution-led research, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be largely dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong integrity profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -1.115. This result signifies a complete operational silence, with no risk signals detected. This indicates that authorship is well-distributed and that the university fosters a research environment free from the pressures that can lead to imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This strong result indicates that the institution does not replicate the national tendency toward academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and mitigates the conflict of interest that arises when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process.
The institution's Z-score of 0.284 reflects a medium-level risk, but it also demonstrates relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. Although some risk signals are present, the university operates with considerably more order than the national trend. This indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. While the university's situation is far from the national crisis level, the existing signal suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
