Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University presents a complex but promising scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.603. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of internal governance and authorship ethics, evidenced by very low to non-existent risk signals in Hyperprolific Authorship, Multiple Affiliations, Output in Institutional Journals, and a notable capacity for generating high-impact research under its own leadership. These strengths form a solid foundation of responsible research practice. However, this foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities in its dissemination strategy, particularly a critical rate of publication in Discontinued Journals and a high level of Institutional Self-Citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in several thematic areas, including a top 10 ranking in Social Sciences, alongside competitive placements in Earth and Planetary Sciences and Business, Management and Accounting. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—especially those related to publication quality and impact validation—could undermine common academic goals of achieving global excellence and fulfilling social responsibility. By strategically addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the university can leverage its core integrity strengths to enhance its international reputation and ensure its research contributions are both impactful and enduring.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.329, a value indicating very low risk that is consistent with, and even more conservative than, the national average of -0.785. This alignment with a low-risk national context suggests that the university's collaboration and affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the complete absence of risk signals here confirms that the university's affiliations are the legitimate result of researcher mobility and genuine partnerships, reflecting a culture of clear and honest academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.155, the university maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.056). This suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively, acting as a filter against the systemic issues that may be more prevalent at the country level. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a low rate in a higher-risk context points toward robust pre-publication review processes that successfully prevent methodological flaws or potential malpractice from entering the scientific record, thereby safeguarding the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 3.031, a significant value that, while high, shows a degree of control compared to the even more critical national average of 4.357. This situation represents an attenuated alert; although the institution is a global outlier, it is managing the widespread national tendency for self-citation more effectively than its peers. Nonetheless, a disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work may be validated internally rather than by the broader international community. This practice risks creating an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that its academic influence could be perceived as being sustained by internal dynamics rather than external recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution displays a Z-score of 4.394, a critical alert that significantly exceeds the country's medium-risk score of 2.278. This finding indicates that the university is not only participating in but actively amplifying a national vulnerability regarding publication channel selection. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a serious concern, suggesting that a substantial amount of research is being placed in venues that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence training for researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-quality publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.960, which is even lower than the already low-risk national standard of -0.684. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than the national average. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates can signal author list inflation. The university's low score suggests its authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and honorary or political authorship, thereby preserving the value of individual contributions.

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

With a Z-score of -3.069, the institution shows an exceptionally positive profile, far exceeding the low-risk national average of -0.159. This result signals a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap often indicates that an institution's prestige is dependent on external collaborators. In contrast, this very low (negative) score demonstrates that the impact of research led by the university's own authors is robust and self-sufficient. This reflects a strong internal capacity for intellectual leadership, ensuring that its reputation for excellence is built on a solid foundation of its own scholarly contributions.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete absence of risk signals, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average of -1.115. This total operational silence indicates a healthy and balanced research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or salami slicing. The university's clean record in this area suggests that its academic culture prioritizes quality and the integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of output, fostering a sustainable and ethical approach to productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.154. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific production, ensuring it is assessed by competitive international standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 2.440, the university shows a medium level of risk, but this represents a state of relative containment when compared to the significant-risk national average of 2.716. Although risk signals are present, the institution appears to operate with more control than its national peers. A medium score still warrants attention, as it alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the university is successfully moderating the more critical patterns seen across the country, further review is advisable to ensure that research contributions prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.