| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.911 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.136 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.407 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.219 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.123 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.451 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.137 | 2.965 |
The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration presents a complex integrity profile, marked by commendable strengths in governance alongside significant vulnerabilities in publication practices. With an overall score of 0.306, the institution demonstrates robust control over authorship ethics, reflected in very low-risk indicators for Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. This suggests a culture that prioritizes genuine contribution and external validation. However, this is counterbalanced by a cluster of medium-risk indicators related to publication strategy, including the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output, which signal a need for strategic review. These risks stand in contrast to the Academy's strong academic positioning, particularly its leadership in areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Social Sciences; Arts and Humanities; and Business, Management and Accounting, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could undermine the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility by potentially compromising the quality and transparency of its research output. A targeted intervention to refine publication and affiliation policies would be a strategic step to align its operational integrity with its recognized thematic excellence, thereby safeguarding its long-term reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.911, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.401. This result suggests that within a national context already showing a medium level of risk, the Academy is more exposed to the factors driving this indicator. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The institution's heightened value compared to its peers warrants a review of its affiliation policies to ensure they reflect genuine collaborative contributions rather than metric-driven strategies.
With a Z-score of 0.136, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.228. This indicates a more effective management of this risk factor than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. In this case, the Academy’s ability to maintain a lower rate within a medium-risk national environment suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are comparatively more robust, although the presence of risk still calls for continued vigilance.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.407, a medium-risk value that nonetheless represents a significant level of containment when compared to the country's critical Z-score of 2.800. This demonstrates that the Academy operates with more order than the national average in this regard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. By avoiding the extreme levels seen nationally, the institution shows that its academic influence is less dependent on internal validation, mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating greater engagement with the global scientific community.
The Academy's Z-score of 1.219 is higher than the national average of 1.015, indicating a greater institutional exposure to this particular risk. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This elevated Z-score suggests that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.123, a very low-risk signal that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.488). The absence of risk signals in this area indicates a healthy and transparent authorship culture. This confirms that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.451, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile, showcasing resilience against the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.389). A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. The Academy’s negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige appears to be structural and sustainable, resulting from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a sign of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category and aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.570). This excellent result points to a well-balanced academic environment where quality is not sacrificed for quantity. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution has successfully mitigated risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating it from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 0.979). This is a strong indicator of a commitment to external validation and global scientific dialogue. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the Academy circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 2.137 places it in the medium-risk category, but this represents a degree of relative containment compared to the significant-risk level seen across the country (Z-score of 2.965). While the score still alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, the institution operates with more control than the national average. This suggests that while the risk of 'salami slicing' is present, the Academy is managing to moderate the most severe forms of this practice, which can distort scientific evidence and over-burden the peer review system.
