| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.922 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.671 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.399 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.673 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.317 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.589 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.754 | -0.515 |
The Capital University of Economics and Business demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.127, which indicates a performance superior to the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship and citation practices, with very low risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, effectively insulating it from national trends that show moderate vulnerability in these areas. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two areas of moderate concern: the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which deviate from the low-risk national standard. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is most pronounced in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 44th in China) and Business, Management and Accounting (104th in China). These areas of excellence are directly aligned with its mission to "strategize national development" and "value competence." Nevertheless, the identified risks in retractions and publication channels could undermine the institutional commitment to "advocate morality" and its vision to be "respected all over the world." To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic ambitions, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its pre-publication quality control and implementing enhanced due diligence protocols for selecting dissemination venues.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.922, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.062. This result demonstrates a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals not only meets but exceeds the already low-risk standard of the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic mobility and partnerships, the university's exceptionally low rate suggests a culture of clear and unambiguous institutional credit attribution. This operational clarity reinforces transparency and minimizes any potential for "affiliation shopping," ensuring that the institution's collaborative footprint is accurately and ethically represented.
With a Z-score of 0.671, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.050. This discrepancy indicates that the university is more exposed to this risk factor than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm, as observed here, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision, which warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.399 stands in stark contrast to the country's average of 0.045. This profile reflects a dynamic of preventive isolation, whereby the university successfully avoids replicating the risk patterns observed in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national trend points towards a moderate risk of 'echo chambers'. The university's very low score demonstrates that its research is validated through robust external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics. This strong outward focus prevents endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is earned through genuine recognition by the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.673 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This gap suggests the university is more sensitive to this particular risk than its counterparts. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a non-trivial portion of the university's scientific output is being placed in venues that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-impact platforms.
With a Z-score of -1.317, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower risk profile than the national average of -0.721. This reflects a commendable consistency with low-risk practices, aligning with and even improving upon the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The university's very low rate in this indicator is a positive signal that it maintains transparent and responsible authorship practices, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for honorary or inflated authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.589 represents a slight divergence from the country's very low-risk average of -0.809. This indicates the emergence of minor risk signals that are not prevalent across the rest of the country. A wide positive gap can signal a risk to sustainability, where prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's score, while still in the low-risk category, suggests its scientific impact may be slightly more reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise full intellectual leadership compared to the national norm. This invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research capacity to ensure its academic excellence is fully structural and endogenous.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, a figure that highlights its preventive isolation from the national trend, which stands at a Z-score of 0.425. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where hyperprolificacy is a moderate concern. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's near-zero incidence of this behavior is a strong indicator of a research culture that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer volume, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.010, demonstrating a consistent and robust adherence to low-risk publication practices. This performance aligns perfectly with a secure national environment, showing even greater control. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party in the publication process. This commitment to external validation ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels to bypass standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.754, the institution operates in a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.515. This exceptional result indicates an absence of risk signals that is even below the national baseline. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score confirms a strong institutional commitment to publishing coherent, significant contributions to knowledge, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
