Poltava State Agrarian University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Poltava State Agrarian University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 1.271 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and zones of significant risk that require immediate strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates outstanding performance in maintaining scientific autonomy and quality control, with very low risk signals in the impact gap from its own leadership, the rate of hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. These strengths suggest a solid foundation of internal capacity and a commitment to external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's core thematic strengths lie in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. However, this academic potential is critically undermined by high-risk indicators in redundant output (salami slicing) and publication in discontinued journals. While a specific mission statement was not localized for this analysis, these practices directly challenge any institutional commitment to research excellence and social responsibility, as they can erode the credibility of the University's contributions. A focused effort to implement stricter publication policies and enhance researcher training on ethical dissemination is essential to protect its academic reputation and ensure its thematic strengths translate into globally recognized, high-integrity research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.807 for this indicator is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.785, indicating a risk level that is normal and expected for its operational context. This alignment suggests that the University's practices regarding researcher affiliations are consistent with national standards. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current low-risk level indicates that the observed patterns are likely the legitimate result of standard academic mobility and collaborative partnerships, reflecting a healthy integration within the national research ecosystem rather than a strategic concern.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.005, the University demonstrates a significantly lower risk of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.056. This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review. The University's performance indicates that its integrity culture is effectively preventing the kind of recurring methodological errors or malpractice that can lead to systemic vulnerabilities, setting a standard of rigor that is stronger than its national environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University exhibits a significant Z-score of 2.892 in institutional self-citation, a value that, while high, is notably lower than the critical national average of 4.357. This situation represents an attenuated alert; the institution is part of a national trend toward high self-citation but demonstrates more control than its peers. A high rate can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Although the University is managing this risk better than the national average, the score still warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that a portion of its academic influence may be driven by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.044 for publication in discontinued journals is a critical concern, significantly amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 2.278). This high value constitutes a severe alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a substantial portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of research resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.583, the University shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which has a low-risk score of -0.684. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to authorship practices compared to its national peers. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are common, such a pattern can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This discrepancy warrants a review to ensure that authorship is granted based on meaningful contributions and to distinguish between necessary collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The University's Z-score of -0.847 is in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the low-risk national profile (Z-score of -0.159). This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals matches the national standard. A minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners for impact. This result is a strong positive indicator of sustainable research capacity, suggesting that the University's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership within its collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a performance that is even stronger than the country's already very low-risk average of -1.115. This total operational silence in a critical integrity metric is an exceptional result. It suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This reflects a strong commitment to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.154). This preventive isolation is a sign of strong governance. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms a commitment to competitive, merit-based validation rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score of 7.614 for redundant output is a global red flag, positioning it as a leader in this high-risk metric within a national context that is already highly compromised (Z-score of 2.716). This extremely high value is a critical alert for the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice severely distorts the available scientific evidence, overburdens the peer-review system, and prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent and thorough review of publication practices and authorship guidelines is imperative to address this issue.