| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.621 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.019 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.443 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.268 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.302 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.633 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.016 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.505 | -0.515 |
Anhui University of Finance and Economics demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its score of 0.328. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Impact Gap, and Redundant Output, indicating strong internal governance and a commitment to genuine academic contribution. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities, most notably a high-risk rate of retracted publications and medium-risk signals in output within discontinued journals and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. These areas require strategic intervention to protect the institution's reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic prowess is concentrated in key thematic areas, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; and Social Sciences, where it holds a strong national and regional standing. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly concerning retractions and publication quality, directly challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. By addressing these specific integrity vulnerabilities, the university can ensure its operational practices fully align with its evident thematic leadership, thereby strengthening its global academic brand.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.621, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, surpassing the standard practices observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate suggests its policies effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that credit for research output is assigned with clarity and integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.019 for retracted output presents a significant contrast to the national average of -0.050. This severe discrepancy points to an atypical level of risk activity that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of -1.443, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, especially when compared to the national average of 0.045, which indicates a medium risk level. This performance suggests a successful preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.268 shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.302 is well below the national average of -0.721, demonstrating low-profile consistency in this area. The complete absence of risk signals for hyper-authorship aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. This indicates that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or inflated authorship lists.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.633, significantly lower than the already low national average of -0.809. This signals a total operational silence in this risk indicator, performing even better than the national benchmark. This result demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and derived from its own internal capacity. There is no evidence of dependency on external partners for impact, confirming that the university exercises strong intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.
With a Z-score of 1.016, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.425, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals related to extreme individual publication volumes. Such a high indicator points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, alerting to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These are dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.010. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for integrity. This low value indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. It confirms that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.505 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.515, showing a complete alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony indicates that the university's practices effectively prevent data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The absence of this risk signal confirms a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
