| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.549 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.775 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.330 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.183 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.712 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.119 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.980 | -0.515 |
Changchun University of Traditional Chinese Medicine demonstrates a robust and well-managed scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.131 that reflects a strong alignment with, and in many cases, an improvement upon, national standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices, including a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors and redundant publications, and a resilient posture against institutional self-citation, which is a notable risk at the national level. These low-risk indicators point to a culture of responsible research conduct. The main vulnerability identified is a medium-risk score for publishing in discontinued journals, a significant deviation from the national trend that warrants immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are concentrated in areas logically aligned with its name, including Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. While a specific mission statement was not provided for this analysis, the identified risk in publication venue selection could undermine the pursuit of academic excellence and global impact. To fully leverage its strong research base and protect its reputation, it is recommended that the institution implements targeted training and stricter policies on selecting publication channels, thereby solidifying its already commendable integrity framework.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.549, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This indicates a prudent and conservative approach to author affiliations, suggesting that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's low score in this area reflects a healthy pattern of collaboration that does not raise concerns about "affiliation shopping," contributing to a transparent and clear representation of its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retracted publications is in close alignment with the national average of -0.050. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the level of risk associated with post-publication corrections is as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and a rate that is not significantly elevated suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are functioning adequately, without systemic failures leading to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. The current level does not indicate a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.775, a figure that stands in stark, positive contrast to the national average of 0.045, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through endogamous validation. The university's very low score indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding isolation and ensuring its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.330 for this indicator marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, highlighting a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its peers. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to guide researchers away from 'predatory' or low-quality practices, thereby preventing the waste of valuable research resources.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.183, significantly lower than the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area reinforces the low-risk standard observed nationally. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's very low score suggests a commendable adherence to authorship norms that value transparency and meaningful contribution, effectively distinguishing its practices from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.712, which represents a slight divergence from the national average of -0.809. This result indicates the emergence of minor risk signals that are not as prevalent in the rest of the country. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal a sustainability risk, where an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's score, while still in the low-risk range, suggests a need to monitor and foster internal research capacity to ensure that its scientific excellence is structural and self-sustaining, rather than primarily derived from a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.119, the institution demonstrates exceptional control in this area, especially when compared to the national average of 0.425, which signals a medium-level risk. This result points to a successful preventive isolation, where the institution does not partake in the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. The rate of hyperprolific authors alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, often pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The institution's very low score indicates a healthy academic culture that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution and the integrity of the scientific record over inflated publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is well below the national average of -0.010, reflecting a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This indicates a very low reliance on its own journals for publication. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy, where research bypasses independent external peer review. The university's minimal use of institutional journals demonstrates a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.980, which is significantly lower than the already very low national average of -0.515. This signifies a state of total operational silence in this risk area, with an absence of signals that is even more pronounced than the national norm. High rates of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing studies into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's extremely low score is a strong positive indicator of a research culture that values the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-driven goals.
