Anhui Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Anhui Normal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.320 and a predominance of indicators at low or very low risk levels. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over practices related to hyperprolific authorship, the development of internal research capacity, and the use of institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from risks that are more prevalent at the national level. The primary area for strategic attention is the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which registers a medium risk level and moderately deviates from the national standard. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's main thematic strengths are concentrated in areas such as Energy, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Physics and Astronomy, and Chemistry. While the institution's mission was not specified, this strong integrity framework fundamentally supports any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. However, the observed signal in multiple affiliations could, if unaddressed, create a perception of strategic credit inflation that might detract from the credibility of its core research areas. It is recommended that the university celebrate its solid governance structure while proactively investigating the drivers behind its affiliation patterns to ensure they reflect genuine, transparent collaboration, thereby reinforcing its position as a reliable and high-integrity academic leader.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.812, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This indicates a moderate deviation, as the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this score suggests that the institution's rate is unusually high for its context. This warrants a review to ensure that these affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous performance than the national average of -0.050. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but this low score indicates that the institution's pre-publication review mechanisms are effective. It suggests that any retractions are more likely to be part of a responsible process of scientific correction rather than a symptom of systemic failures in its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.623 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.045, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate indicates it avoids the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through endogamous practices. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external recognition from the global scientific community, not just by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.063 is slightly better than the national average of -0.024. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its selection of publication venues with more rigor than the national standard. A low proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a positive sign of due diligence. It suggests that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thus protecting the university from the reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.004, the institution shows a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship compared to the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile suggests that the university's processes for assigning authorship are more rigorous than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this very low score indicates that the institution effectively prevents practices like author list inflation or honorary authorship. This reinforces individual accountability and transparency in recognizing research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.872 is exceptionally low, even when compared to the very low national average of -0.809. This represents a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that surpasses the already strong national benchmark. A minimal gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and derives from its own internal capacity, not from a dependency on external partners. This result is a clear sign of sustainable excellence and robust intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution registers an extremely low Z-score of -1.413, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425, which indicates a medium risk. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be positive, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. This very low score signals a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting an absence of coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, improving upon the low-risk national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency shows a complete absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with the national standard for good practice. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest, but this score indicates the university avoids academic endogamy. Its research is consistently subjected to independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.078, while in the low-risk category, represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This suggests the center shows minor signals of risk activity that are largely absent in the rest of the country. Although the risk is not high, this value alerts to a potential, albeit minimal, tendency toward "salami slicing," where a study is fragmented to inflate productivity. It is advisable to monitor this indicator to ensure research practices continue to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications.