| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.971 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.004 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.235 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.548 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.200 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.969 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.109 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.985 | 2.965 |
The Russian State Agrarian University - Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.229 reflecting both exceptional governance in specific areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength and control in managing hyper-authorship, multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and dependency on institutional journals, maintaining very low risk levels that stand in stark opposition to national trends. However, this operational discipline is challenged by a significant risk in institutional self-citation, which is a global red flag, and medium-level risks related to output in discontinued journals, retracted publications, and redundant output. These findings coincide with the institution's strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks nationally in the top 10 for Physics and Astronomy, and holds strong positions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (20th), Earth and Planetary Sciences (21st), and Environmental Science (23rd). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly the high rate of self-citation, could undermine core academic values of external validation and global impact. Any mission centered on excellence and social responsibility is inherently tied to scientific integrity, making the mitigation of these risks a strategic priority. By leveraging its proven strengths in governance to address its vulnerabilities, the University can ensure its notable thematic performance is built on a foundation of robust and transparent practices, securing a sustainable and reputable position in the global academic landscape.
The institution's Z-score of -0.971 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.401, indicating a successful preventive isolation from risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This very low rate suggests that the university's collaborative practices are well-governed and transparent. It effectively avoids any signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” which can be associated with higher rates, thereby maintaining clear and unambiguous attribution for its research output.
With a Z-score of 0.004, the institution demonstrates more effective management of publication quality compared to the national average of 0.228. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university shows a capacity to moderate the factors that lead to retractions. A high rate in this indicator can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The institution's lower value points to a more robust, though not infallible, system of supervision and methodological rigor, reducing its exposure to the reputational damage associated with recurring malpractice or a lack of integrity culture.
With a Z-score of 4.235, significantly surpassing the already high national average of 2.800, the institution presents a global red flag in this indicator. This suggests it not only participates in but amplifies a risk dynamic that is already compromised at the national level. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, these disproportionately high rates signal a critical risk of an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation suggests the institution's academic influence could be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community, a situation that requires urgent review to ensure the credibility of its research contributions.
The institution shows a high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 1.548 that is notably higher than the national average of 1.015. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in channels that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination venues. This pattern suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that carry severe reputational risks and represent a waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.200 is significantly lower than the national Z-score of -0.488, demonstrating a consistent and low-risk profile in authorship practices. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates that the university's research culture successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.969, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.389, demonstrating a clear disconnection from the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. This very low score signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners for impact. Unlike the national trend, which suggests a potential reliance on collaborations where intellectual leadership is not exercised, the university's excellence metrics appear to result from genuine internal capacity, indicating a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -1.109, the institution maintains a risk-free profile that is more robust than the national standard (-0.570). This low-profile consistency shows an absence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data suggests the institution fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or assignment of authorship without real participation that can arise when metrics are prioritized over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average Z-score is 0.979. This very low rate shows that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By not relying on internal channels, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and avoids any perception of using in-house journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.985, while indicating a medium level of risk, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the significant national risk level of 2.965. This suggests that although signals of data fragmentation exist, the university operates with more control than the national average. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, or 'salami slicing.' The institution's more moderate score indicates a lower, but still present, tendency toward this practice, which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system.
