| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.257 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.004 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
4.318 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.410 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.641 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.880 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.501 | 2.965 |
Kemerovo State Medical University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.406 reflecting both exceptional governance in specific areas and critical vulnerabilities in others. The institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices and publication channels, showing very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and output in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a solid foundation in academic ethics. However, this is offset by significant alerts in three key areas: an extremely high rate of institutional self-citation, a substantial gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research, and a high incidence of redundant publications. These weaknesses point to systemic risks of academic insularity and a focus on quantitative metrics over substantive contribution. The University's strong ranking in Medicine, placing it among the top 60 institutions in the Russian Federation according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, highlights its potential for excellence. Yet, the identified risks directly challenge its mission to foster "competent, responsible and creative" professionals, as practices that inflate impact and productivity artificially can undermine the very quality and responsibility the mission espouses. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the University is advised to leverage its clear strengths in authorial and editorial integrity to develop targeted strategies that address academic endogamy and promote research that is both impactful and sustainable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.257, a value indicating a very low risk level that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.401. This demonstrates a clear operational independence from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the University's low rate suggests a strong and unambiguous institutional identity, effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This result points to a well-defined and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations, reinforcing institutional integrity.
With a Z-score of 0.004, the institution's rate of retractions is significantly lower than the national average of 0.228, despite both falling within a medium-risk classification. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the University successfully moderates a risk that is more prevalent nationally. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can signal systemic failures in quality control. In this context, the University's comparatively lower score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are more effective than those of its national peers, mitigating potential vulnerabilities in its integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 4.318, a critically high value that not only falls into the significant risk category but also markedly exceeds the already high national average of 2.800. This pattern identifies the University as a leader in a problematic national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these disproportionately high rates signal a concerning scientific isolation. This creates an 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may be validated without sufficient external scrutiny, warning of endogamous impact inflation. This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.410, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably better than the national average of 1.015. This demonstrates a more effective management of publication channels compared to the national context. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. The University's ability to keep this indicator below the national trend suggests a greater awareness in avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its reputation and research investment from predatory or low-quality practices more effectively than its peers.
With a Z-score of 0.641, the institution shows a medium risk level for hyper-authored publications, deviating moderately from the national average of -0.488, which is in the low-risk category. This indicates that the University is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, their appearance outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This divergence from the national norm suggests a need to review authorship policies to ensure a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and potentially inappropriate 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.880, a significant-risk value that dramatically amplifies the vulnerability observed at the national level (0.389). This extremely wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low—signals a critical sustainability risk. It suggests that the University's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not built upon its own structural capacity. This result urgently invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capabilities or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, creating a dependency that could compromise its long-term scientific autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a position that is even more conservative than the low-risk national average of -0.570. This reflects a consistent and commendable low-profile approach to author productivity. The absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard for responsible research conduct. This indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, isolating itself from a medium-risk practice that is more common nationally (country average of 0.979). This preventive stance is a strong indicator of good governance. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent external peer review. By avoiding this dynamic, the University demonstrates a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is subject to standard international scrutiny rather than potentially being fast-tracked through internal channels.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 3.501, a critically high value that surpasses the already significant national average of 2.965. This positions the University as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already compromised in this area. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications typically indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This severe indicator warns that a significant portion of the University's output may be distorting the scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This practice requires immediate and decisive intervention.
