Khmelnytskyi National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Khmelnytskyi National University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.561 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over multiple risk indicators, including hyperprolific authorship, use of institutional journals, and redundant publications, often performing better than the national context. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. The university's robust performance is particularly notable in its key thematic areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top national institutions in Computer Science, Energy, and Engineering. However, this profile of excellence is challenged by significant risk signals in institutional self-citation and, most critically, in the rate of publication in discontinued journals. While specific mission details were not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities directly threaten any institutional commitment to research excellence and global impact, as they suggest potential academic isolation and a risk to reputational integrity. A strategic focus on mitigating these two key risks, while leveraging its many areas of good practice, will be crucial for consolidating its scientific leadership and ensuring long-term reputational security.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.882 for multiple affiliations, compared to the national Z-score of -0.785, indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with the national environment. This demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration. The absence of disproportionately high rates suggests that affiliations are managed legitimately, reflecting genuine researcher mobility and partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.052, the university shows a low rate of retracted output, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests a notable institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign, indicating that the university's pre-publication review processes are robust and that its integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a significant risk in institutional self-citation with a Z-score of 3.696. While this is a high value, it is important to note that it is below the critical national average of 4.357. This situation points to an attenuated alert; the university is part of a widespread national dynamic of high self-citation but demonstrates comparatively more control than its peers. Nonetheless, this disproportionately high rate signals a risk of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This practice could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that its academic influence is potentially oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global research community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 3.628 for publications in discontinued journals represents a significant risk and a point of urgent concern, as it is substantially higher than the national average of 2.278. This indicates that the institution is not only participating in a problematic national trend but is amplifying it. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks, suggesting that a significant portion of its scientific production is channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. An urgent review of information literacy and publication guidance is needed to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -0.796 that is lower than the national average of -0.684. This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. The low rate suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution is effectively avoiding author list inflation. This reflects a healthy academic culture that values individual accountability and transparency over the use of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of -0.606, the university demonstrates a prudent and healthy balance in its collaborative impact, performing more rigorously than the national average of -0.159. The low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role is a strong indicator of sustainability. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even lower than the already low national average of -1.115. This total operational silence in a potential risk area is a strong positive indicator. It suggests that the university fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume, effectively avoiding practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, which can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals indicates a very low-risk profile, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.154. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By not depending excessively on its in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.143 for redundant output is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. This stark difference shows that the university acts as an effective filter, functioning as a firewall against a national trend of problematic publication practices. The low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications indicates that the institution promotes the dissemination of coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture of high integrity.