| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.774 | 0.543 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | 0.570 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
11.435 | 7.586 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.640 | 3.215 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.173 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.285 | -0.598 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.673 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
14.493 | 5.115 |
Karshi Engineering Economic Institute presents a dualistic profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 1.887. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths and robust controls in areas related to authorship and collaboration, effectively insulating itself from national trends in multiple affiliations and retracted output. However, this positive performance is critically overshadowed by significant vulnerabilities in its publication strategy. Extremely high rates of institutional self-citation, redundant output (salami slicing), and publication in discontinued journals suggest systemic issues that require immediate strategic intervention. These risks stand in contrast to the institution's notable academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Environmental Science. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified integrity risks—particularly those fostering academic isolation and prioritizing volume over substance—fundamentally challenge the universal academic mission of achieving genuine excellence and contributing responsibly to the global body of knowledge. To secure its long-term reputation and impact, the Institute is advised to leverage its governance strengths to implement a rigorous quality assurance framework focused on publication ethics and channel selection.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.774, indicating a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.543. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the Institute's data shows no signs of the disproportionately high rates that can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This prudent management of affiliations demonstrates a strong foundation in collaborative transparency, avoiding practices that could artificially boost its standing.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, performing significantly better than the national average of 0.570. This disparity points to a robust institutional framework for quality control that acts as a filter against the higher-risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. Retractions can be complex, but a high rate often suggests systemic failures in pre-publication review. The Institute's low score indicates that its quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, protecting its scientific record and suggesting an integrity culture that successfully prevents the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score of 11.435 is a critical red flag, significantly amplifying the already high-risk national average of 7.586. This result indicates that the Institute is a leader in risk metrics within a country already compromised in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation and creates an 'echo chamber' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice warns of severe endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be dangerously oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution displays a Z-score of 4.640, a significant risk level that markedly exceeds the country's already high average of 3.215. This finding constitutes a global red flag, positioning the center as an amplifier of vulnerabilities present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the Institute's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -1.401, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and even surpassing the country's very low-risk average of -1.173. This state of total operational silence in a key integrity indicator is a sign of exemplary governance. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute accountability. The Institute's score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and well-regulated, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.285, the institution is in a low-risk category, similar to the national average of -0.598. However, the Institute's score is slightly higher, suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal a sustainability risk, where an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. While the current risk is low, the slight deviation from the national baseline suggests a minor tendency towards this dependency. This invites reflection on ensuring that the institution's excellence metrics are primarily the result of its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a stronger position than the national low-risk average of -0.673. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals indicates a healthy research environment that does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The Institute's excellent score suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, with both reflecting a very low-risk profile. This perfect alignment signifies integrity synchrony, where the Institute's practices are in total harmony with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The Institute's score confirms that its scientific production is consistently subjected to independent external peer review, thereby avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' and ensuring its research competes for global visibility and validation.
This indicator represents the most severe risk for the institution, with a Z-score of 14.493 that is alarmingly higher than the already significant national average of 5.115. This result is a global red flag, identifying the Institute as a critical outlier that leads risk metrics in a highly compromised national context. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications indicates data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This extreme value alerts to a systemic issue that distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This practice requires urgent and decisive intervention.
