Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine presents a highly polarized integrity profile, where an overall score of 0.043 masks a combination of exceptional strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding performance in maintaining low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in its own journals, effectively insulating itself from risks that are prevalent at the national level. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized academic contributions in its core thematic areas, including Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is severely challenged by two significant risk indicators: a notable dependency on external partners for research impact and an unusually high rate of redundant publications. These weaknesses directly threaten the core tenets of any academic mission centered on excellence and leadership, suggesting that while the institution excels at avoiding certain procedural risks, it must urgently address practices that could undermine the structural integrity and sustainability of its scientific contributions. A strategic focus on fostering intellectual leadership and promoting substantive, high-quality research over sheer volume is essential for aligning its operational reality with its aspirational goals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.530, which is significantly better than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a clear and consistent approach to declaring institutional affiliations, avoiding the ambiguity that can arise in the national context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this institution's very low rate signals robust governance and transparency. This operational silence in a potential risk area suggests that strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping" are not a feature of its research culture, reinforcing the clarity and integrity of its academic footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.042, the institution's rate of retractions is at a medium level, though it performs slightly better than the national average of 0.056. This suggests a differentiated management of post-publication quality control. Retractions are complex events, and a medium value indicates that while some issues exist, the institution appears to moderate these risks more effectively than its national peers. The data suggests that while quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have occasional failures, the situation is not systemic and is being managed with greater rigor than the surrounding environment, warranting continued monitoring rather than immediate alarm.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exemplary disconnection from a significant national risk, with a Z-score of -1.427 in a country context where the average is a critical 4.357. This vast difference highlights a profound strength in the university's research culture, indicating that its work is validated by the broader international scientific community rather than through internal "echo chambers." While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's extremely low rate confirms that its academic influence is driven by external recognition, not endogamous impact inflation. This robust external validation is a cornerstone of its scientific credibility and global integration.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a medium risk level with a Z-score of 0.079, a figure that, while indicating a need for attention, is substantially better than the national average of 2.278. This demonstrates a differentiated and more cautious management of publication channels compared to the national trend. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, but here the institution successfully moderates a risk that is far more common in the country. This suggests that while some researchers may still be channeling work through low-quality media, the institution as a whole is more discerning, though further improvements in information literacy are needed to fully eliminate this reputational risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.489, the institution's rate of hyper-authored publications is low, but it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.684. This points to an incipient vulnerability. While the overall risk is contained and within a normal range, the slight positive deviation compared to its peers suggests that authorship practices warrant a review before they escalate. It is important to ensure that author lists reflect genuine collaboration and accountability, and to proactively guard against any emerging trends of "honorary" or inflated authorship that could dilute individual responsibility.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

This indicator reveals a severe discrepancy and a critical area of risk for the institution. Its Z-score of 4.727 is an extreme outlier, especially when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.159. This wide positive gap signals a significant sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. The data strongly indicates that its high-impact metrics result from strategic positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise intellectual leadership. This dependency requires an urgent and deep integrity assessment to build genuine internal capacity and ensure its reputation for excellence is built on a solid foundation of its own creation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.413, which is even lower than the country's already very low-risk average of -1.115. This is an outstanding result, demonstrating an absence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This finding points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer quantity of output, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or honorary authorship and fostering a balanced approach to academic productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution displays a strong preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a context where the country shows a medium risk (0.154). This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding in-house publishing. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review is a significant strength, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator is a global red flag and the institution's most pressing challenge. With a Z-score of 3.903, it not only reflects the country's critical risk level (2.716) but significantly amplifies it. This extremely high value alerts to a widespread practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units, a practice known as "salami slicing," to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior distorts the scientific evidence, overburdens the review system, and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. As the institution leads this negative metric in a country already highly compromised, it is imperative to launch an immediate and thorough review of publication ethics and research assessment policies.