| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.113 | 0.401 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | 0.228 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.945 | 2.800 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.048 | 1.015 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.497 | -0.488 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.870 | 0.389 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.530 | -0.570 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.979 |
|
Redundant Output
|
8.438 | 2.965 |
Krasnoyarsk State Medical University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.474 reflecting both significant strengths in institutional governance and critical vulnerabilities in publication practices. The University demonstrates commendable resilience against several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, maintaining very low to low-risk profiles in areas such as output in discontinued or institutional journals, multiple affiliations, and retracted publications. These strengths suggest robust internal control mechanisms. However, this is offset by a critical alert regarding the Rate of Redundant Output (salami slicing), which is exceptionally high even for a national context with existing vulnerabilities, alongside medium-risk signals in self-citation, hyper-authorship, and a dependency on external partners for research impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's key thematic areas of output include Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities. While a specific mission statement was not available for analysis, any institutional goal centered on academic excellence and social responsibility is directly challenged by integrity risks that suggest a focus on quantity over quality. To secure its long-term reputation, the University is advised to leverage its evident strengths in administrative oversight to implement targeted reforms addressing publication ethics and authorship standards, thereby ensuring its scientific contributions are both impactful and fundamentally sound.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.113, positioning it in a low-risk category, in contrast to the Russian Federation's medium-risk average of 0.401. This demonstrates a notable degree of institutional resilience, as the University's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation misuse observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University’s contained profile suggests that its affiliations are managed with a rigor that prevents such inflation, aligning its collaborative practices with standards of transparency and clear attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, standing in favorable contrast to the national average of 0.228, which falls into the medium-risk band. This suggests effective institutional resilience, where internal quality controls appear to be mitigating the broader national trend of publication integrity issues. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The University's low score indicates that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and ethical oversight are functioning more effectively than the national standard, protecting its scientific record and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.945 places it in the medium-risk category, a signal that warrants attention but also demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 2.800. This indicates that while the University exhibits some tendencies toward insularity, it operates with more moderation than the national scientific environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through internal dynamics rather than external validation. The University's score suggests a need to encourage broader engagement with the global scientific community to ensure its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny and to avoid the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.048, which is significantly healthier than the national medium-risk average of 1.015. This performance points to a strong institutional capacity to filter out problematic publication venues, effectively resisting a risk dynamic that is more common in its environment. Publishing in discontinued journals often signals a failure in due diligence, channeling research into outlets that lack ethical or quality standards. The University’s low rate indicates a successful implementation of information literacy and quality control, protecting its research from reputational damage and ensuring resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.497 is in the medium-risk range, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.488. This discrepancy suggests the University shows a greater sensitivity to factors that can lead to inflated author lists compared to its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high score outside these contexts can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt for the institution to review its authorship practices to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political authorship that may be more prevalent than in the rest of the country.
The institution's Z-score of 1.870 is classified as a medium risk, the same category as the national average of 0.389. However, the University's score is substantially higher, indicating a high level of exposure to this particular vulnerability. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is notable, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being generated by structural, internal capacity. The data invites a strategic reflection on whether the University's excellence metrics are the result of its own core capabilities or its positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -0.530, the institution's risk level is low and closely aligned with the national average of -0.570. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the prevalence of hyperprolific authors is as expected for its context and size. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The University's normal score suggests that such imbalances between quantity and quality are not a systemic issue, and its research environment appears to foster a sustainable and credible rate of productivity among its authors.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.979). The University does not replicate the national tendency to rely on in-house publication channels. While institutional journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The University's extremely low score is a sign of strength, indicating a commitment to seeking external, competitive validation for its research and promoting its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is an alarming 8.438, placing it in the significant-risk category and far exceeding the already high national average of 2.965. This constitutes a global red flag, as the University leads risk metrics in a country already compromised by this issue. A high value here is a strong alert for 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior severely distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the review system. The extremity of this score calls for an urgent and deep audit of publication ethics and authorship practices to address what appears to be a systemic integrity vulnerability.
