| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.107 | -0.785 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.361 | 0.056 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.785 | 4.357 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.867 | 2.278 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.831 | -0.684 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.949 | -0.159 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.115 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.154 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.607 | 2.716 |
Dragomanov Ukrainian State University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.178 indicating a medium level of exposure. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and robust governance in areas such as authorship practices and the use of institutional journals, where it significantly outperforms national averages. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a high incidence of redundant output, which suggest systemic issues in research dissemination and productivity assessment. Academically, the university shows notable strength in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks directly challenge the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. Practices that compromise the quality and integrity of the scientific record, such as publishing in predatory venues or fragmenting research, undermine the trust and societal value that are fundamental to any higher education institution's purpose. By addressing these critical areas with targeted training and revised policies, the university can better align its operational integrity with its recognized academic strengths, ensuring its contributions are both impactful and ethically sound.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.107, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.785. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard. The data suggests that the university's policies and researcher practices align with a model of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the already low-risk context of the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate demonstrates a clear and well-managed approach to academic collaboration, effectively avoiding any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.361, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of 0.056. This disparity suggests that the university has a greater exposure to the factors that lead to publication withdrawal. A high rate of retractions can be a critical signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this value alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, possibly indicating recurring methodological weaknesses or a lack of rigorous supervision that warrants immediate qualitative review by management to prevent further occurrences.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.785, a medium-risk value that demonstrates significant control when compared to the country's critical average of 4.357. This reflects a scenario of relative containment, where the university successfully mitigates a risk that is systemic and widespread at the national level. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's ability to keep this rate moderate suggests it is avoiding the severe scientific isolation and 'echo chambers' prevalent in its environment. This controlled approach helps ensure its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being disproportionately inflated by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 5.867 is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the medium-risk vulnerability observed at the national level (2.278). This finding points to a severe issue with the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a major red flag regarding due diligence, indicating that a substantial part of the institution's research is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the university to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to implement information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
With a Z-score of -0.831, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.684). This demonstrates effective management of authorship practices. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's low score suggests its researchers adhere to transparent and appropriate authorship criteria, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual responsibility in its scientific output.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.949, indicating a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.159. This positive gap suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risks related to dependency on external collaboration for impact. A wide gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous than structural, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the country's already very low average of -1.115. This reflects a state of total operational silence in this indicator. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's score indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, with no evidence of the imbalances that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (0.154). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance in its publishing strategy. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, bypassing independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility rather than using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 2.607 places it in a high-risk category, reflecting a critical national issue, although it shows slightly more control than the country's average of 2.716. This constitutes an attenuated alert within a widespread crisis. A high value in this indicator warns that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is prevalent. This dynamic, often called 'salami slicing,' distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer review system. The significant risk level indicates an urgent need to promote research practices that prioritize the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication volume.
