| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.553 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.670 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.023 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.284 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.296 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.978 | 2.965 |
Yaroslavl State Medical University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.007 indicating a balance between significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary governance in key areas, showing very low-risk signals for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths suggest a robust internal culture that resists certain national trends toward metric inflation. However, this is offset by two significant areas of concern: a high Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and a critically high Rate of Redundant Output, which surpasses the already elevated national average. The University's key thematic strengths, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, lie in Medicine and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified high-risk practices, particularly data fragmentation and academic endogamy, directly challenge the universal academic values of originality, research integrity, and impactful knowledge creation. Such practices risk undermining the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its long-term reputation, it is recommended that the University leverage its clear areas of strong governance to implement targeted policies and training that address publication ethics and citation practices, ensuring its scientific contributions are both robust and transparent.
The institution's Z-score of -1.553 is in stark contrast to the national average of 0.401. This result indicates a successful preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed elsewhere in the country. The University does not appear to replicate the national tendency toward high rates of multiple affiliations. While such affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. By maintaining a very low rate, the institution projects a clear and focused academic identity, avoiding practices that could be perceived as "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that its scholarly credit is unambiguous.
With a Z-score of 0.061, the institution's rate of retracted output is notably lower than the national average of 0.228, demonstrating differentiated management of this risk. Although both the institution and the country operate at a medium-risk level, the University appears to moderate this risk more effectively than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. The University's relative success in this area suggests that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms, while not infallible, are more robust than the national standard, though continued vigilance is warranted.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 2.670, which, while slightly below the critical national average of 2.800, represents an attenuated alert. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a reputational risk by creating a perception that its impact is not fully recognized by the global scientific community.
The institution shows strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.023, effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level, where the average score is 1.015. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The University’s low score indicates that its researchers are successfully avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This suggests that its control mechanisms and researcher training are acting as an effective filter, protecting the institution from the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.284, compared to the national average of -0.488, signals an incipient vulnerability. Although the risk level is low for both, the University shows slightly more activity in this area than its national peers, which warrants review before it escalates. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, a high rate can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This minor deviation from the national baseline serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices continue to reflect genuine collaboration rather than honorary or political attributions.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution demonstrates institutional resilience against a national trend reflected in the country's average of 0.389. A wide positive gap suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The University’s negative score is a healthy sign, indicating that the impact of research led by its own authors is strong and not significantly lower than its overall collaborative impact. This reflects a sustainable model of scientific development, where excellence is driven by real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413, compared to the national average of -0.570, demonstrates low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in this area. This aligns with the national standard of low risk but shows an even stronger commitment to this principle. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The complete absence of this phenomenon at the University indicates a healthy research environment where the focus is likely on the quality and integrity of the scientific record rather than on inflating individual metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.979, indicating a clear case of preventive isolation. The University successfully avoids a risk dynamic that is common in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. By channeling its research toward external venues, the institution demonstrates a commitment to global standards and competitive validation, enhancing the international visibility and credibility of its scientific production.
The institution's Z-score of 3.978 is a global red flag, as it significantly exceeds the already critical national average of 2.965. This indicates that the University not only participates in a highly compromised national dynamic but is a leader in this problematic practice. A high value in this indicator alerts to the systemic practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior severely distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This finding requires an urgent and profound integrity assessment and immediate corrective action.
