| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.710 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.604 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.573 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.119 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.297 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Jilin University of Finance and Economics presents a globally balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.018, indicating performance that is closely aligned with expected international standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in avoiding institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications. This robust foundation is contrasted by a notable area for improvement: a medium-risk level in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are concentrated in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Mathematics, where it holds strong national rankings. While specific mission details were not available for this analysis, the identified risk of publishing in discontinued journals poses a potential threat to any institutional commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility. Such practices can undermine reputational integrity and misdirect valuable research efforts. By addressing this specific vulnerability, Jilin University of Finance and Economics can further solidify its commendable integrity framework and ensure its research contributions achieve their maximum and most reputable impact.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.710, which is lower than the national average of -0.062. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate demonstrates a low risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining clear and transparent academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution's rate of retracted output is below the national average of -0.050. This favorable comparison points to a prudent and effective management of research quality. Retractions can be complex events, but a lower-than-average rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning well. This performance indicates a healthy integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that successfully minimizes the occurrence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.604, a figure that signals a very low risk and stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines; however, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms its work is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than within an 'echo chamber.' This robust external engagement prevents any risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is a genuine reflection of recognition by the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.573 in this indicator, a figure that moderately deviates from the national average of -0.024. This suggests the university is more exposed to this particular risk factor than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The current score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid 'predatory' publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -1.119, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is well below the national average of -0.721. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's low score confirms that it is not prone to author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This reflects a culture where authorship is likely tied to meaningful contribution rather than 'honorary' or political practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.297 reveals a slight divergence from the national context, where the average score is -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's score, while low, suggests a need to monitor whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.425, which sits in the medium-risk range. This result signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution effectively insulates itself from national trends toward hyper-productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains a very low rate of publication in its own journals, performing better than the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency shows that the institution's practices align with a secure national standard, avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can risk academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's minimal use of such channels demonstrates a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed by the broader scientific community.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.515. This signals a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The institution's extremely low score is a strong indicator of its commitment to publishing significant, coherent bodies of work, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and respecting the academic review system.
