AMI v1.4: Russia, Ukraine, and Iran Added to Index

TL;DR

AMI v1.4 added Russia, Ukraine, and Iran. Expanded coverage from 28 to 31 countries. Russia: P=37.5, R=16.8, Q4. Ukraine: P=22.5, R=28.2, Q4. Iran: P=57.0, R=13.2, Q3. Methodology updates for sanctions context and post-conflict measurement.

What v1.4 changed

Version 1.4 of the AMI represented the first major coverage expansion. Three countries with significant academic integrity stories were added:

• Russia — the Dissernet documentation, Antiplagiat detection deployment, and post-Soviet integrity context
• Ukraine — post-Maidan reform agenda, NAQA framework, wartime disruption
• Iran — sanctions-affected detection infrastructure, maxed AI submission demand

The update accompanied methodology refinements addressing the specific measurement challenges these countries posed.

Russia (P=37.5, R=16.8, Q4)

Why Russia was added

Russia presented a distinctive integrity story justifying inclusion:

• Dissernet — the volunteer initiative identifying 10,000+ plagiarised Russian doctoral dissertations
• Antiplagiat — widely deployed detection system for theses
• Documented dissertation mill industry — companies advertising thesis writing services for years
• Post-Soviet institutional rebuilding — relevant comparative case

What the scores showed

Russia's P=37.5 placed it mid-range globally. The dimension breakdown:

High contract cheating demand, high plagiarism, high data fabrication. The R-Score of 16.8 reflects the gap between detection (Antiplagiat exists) and consequences (Dissernet-identified plagiarists faced minimal action).

Key finding

The Russia case demonstrates that detection without enforcement produces limited effect. The country's R-Score is the third lowest in the Eastern European/post-Soviet cluster despite the most extensive Antiplagiat deployment.

Ukraine (P=22.5, R=28.2, Q4)

Why Ukraine was added

Ukraine's post-Maidan reform agenda provides an important counterpoint to the Russian case:

• NAQA — the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (2015), with explicit integrity remit
• Strikha Law — 2014 Higher Education Act reforms
• External thesis evaluation — required for accredited programmes
• Wartime context — measuring integrity under exceptional conditions

What the scores showed

Ukraine's P=22.5 was the lowest in Eastern Europe — well below Russia's 37.5 and Poland's 51.2.

Lower D4 and D6 than Russia despite shared historical context. Moderate D1 and D2.

Wartime methodology

The v1.4 methodology added a wartime context note for Ukraine. Key adjustments:

• Detection data quality reflects current institutional state, not pre-war
• Some Ukrainian institutions relocated abroad; affiliation matching adjusted
• Wartime disruption to research output affected D6 calculation slightly
• Methodology committed to noting context explicitly in published scores

Key finding

Ukraine's R-Score (28.2) is meaningfully higher than Russia's (16.8) despite shared historical context — institutional choice produces different outcomes even from similar starting points.

Iran (P=57.0, R=13.2, Q3)

Why Iran was added

Iran presented the most methodologically challenging addition:

• Sanctions context — limited access to commercial detection tools
• Maxed AI submission demand — Persian-language search volume
• Substantial research output — growing Iranian research base
• Documented plagiarism and fabrication — peer-reviewed literature evidence

What the scores showed

Iran's P=57.0 placed it eighth globally — Q3 Crisis zone placement.

Maxed AI submission demand, high plagiarism, high collusion, elevated fabrication.

R=13.2 was the second-lowest globally (only Egypt at 12.0 was lower).

Sanctions methodology

The v1.4 methodology added notes on sanctions-affected detection infrastructure. Iranian universities have:

• Limited access to Turnitin and iThenticate licensing
• Some domestic detection alternatives (varying coverage)
• Limited international integrity training partnerships

The R-Score reflects these constraints rather than pure policy choice. Future versions will continue to develop sanctions-context measurement.

Key finding

Iran sits at the most acute Crisis zone position globally — high Prevalence (P=57) combined with second-lowest Response (R=13.2). The structural constraints from sanctions interact with the policy environment.

Methodology updates in v1.4

Sanctions-context note

For countries where sanctions limit commercial detection infrastructure access (Iran specifically), the Detection sub-component scoring was annotated. Sanctions-affected countries can have strong domestic policy intent and still score low on Detection due to access constraints.

Post-conflict measurement

For Ukraine, the wartime disruption produced measurement challenges. The methodology established conventions for:

• Affiliation matching during institutional relocation
• Research output measurement during wartime disruption
• Annotation of scores affected by exceptional context

Russian-language journal coverage

The Russia addition benefited from Retraction Watch's improved coverage of Russian-language journals through 2023–2024. The Russian D6 score reflects this improved coverage.

What v1.4 set up for v1.5

The v1.4 release demonstrated:

• Coverage expansion is feasible without major methodology re-engineering
• Context-specific notes (sanctions, wartime) can be added without compromising cross-country comparability
• The methodology handles diverse institutional contexts

These results enabled the v1.5 expansion to 39 countries (adding Argentina, Colombia, and others) and set the foundation for further expansion in future versions.

Sources

• AMI v1.4 release notes
• Dissernet project documentation
• NAQA framework documentation (Ukraine)
• Retraction Watch Database, Crossref/GitLab
• Iranian higher education integrity literature

Full methodology | Download dataset