| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.236 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.091 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.061 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.229 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.080 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Chengdu Sport University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.091. The institution demonstrates exceptional control and adherence to best practices across the vast majority of indicators, with particularly strong performance in preventing institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications. This solid foundation of integrity supports its notable research output in thematic areas such as Medicine, Psychology, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this commendable overall performance is sharply contrasted by a critical anomaly: a significant-risk score in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. This single vulnerability directly undermines the institution's pursuit of excellence and social responsibility, as it suggests a potential compromise in the quality and ethics of its dissemination channels. While the university’s mission was not specified, any commitment to high-quality research is threatened by this practice. The global recommendation is to leverage the institution's evident strengths in governance and integrity to implement a targeted, urgent intervention focused on improving researcher literacy and due diligence in journal selection, thereby resolving this isolated issue and aligning all practices with its otherwise excellent standards.
With a Z-score of -0.236, the institution demonstrates a more prudent management of academic affiliations compared to the national standard of -0.062. This suggests that the university maintains a controlled and transparent approach to its collaborative framework. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's lower rate indicates a healthy process that effectively mitigates the risk of strategically inflating institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," ensuring that collaborations are substantive and correctly represented.
The institution exhibits a more rigorous approach to quality control than the national benchmark, with its Z-score of -0.334 standing well below the country's score of -0.050. This very low incidence of retractions is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the university's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are highly effective, preventing systemic errors and potential malpractice. This robust internal oversight protects the integrity of its scientific record and reinforces its commitment to responsible research conduct.
Chengdu Sport University effectively insulates itself from the national trend of moderate self-citation, showcasing a Z-score of -1.091 against the country's medium-risk score of 0.045. This marked difference indicates a strong culture of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution successfully mitigates the risk of creating scientific "echo chambers" and ensures that its academic influence is a result of broad external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
This indicator presents a critical alert, as the institution's Z-score of 3.061 represents a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national standard (-0.024). This atypical and high-risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. A high proportion of publications in journals that have been discontinued is a strong signal that due diligence in selecting dissemination channels is failing. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks, suggesting that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. An urgent review is needed to enhance information literacy and prevent the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality publishing.
The institution's Z-score of -1.229 is significantly lower than the national score of -0.721, indicating a complete absence of risk signals related to inflated author lists. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a commendable adherence to transparent and accountable authorship practices. The data suggests that authorship is awarded based on substantive intellectual contribution, effectively avoiding the dilution of responsibility and the potential for "honorary" authorship, thereby strengthening the credibility of its collaborative research.
With a Z-score of -1.080, which is even lower than the country's already low score of -0.809, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals in this area. This result indicates a healthy and sustainable research model where scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity. The impact of research led by the institution is well-aligned with the impact of its collaborative output, demonstrating that its excellence is structural and not dependent on an exogenous or passive role in high-impact partnerships.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with its Z-score of -1.413 contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.425. This very low incidence of hyperprolific authors points to an institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication rates, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, ensuring the integrity of its scientific record is not compromised by a drive for metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268, compared to the national score of -0.010, aligns with a low-risk environment and shows a negligible reliance on its own journals for dissemination. This practice is a sign of institutional maturity and confidence. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to global validation standards enhances the visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring it is not perceived as using internal channels as a "fast track" to inflate publication counts.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to redundant publications, with its Z-score of -1.186 being significantly better than the national average of -0.515. This indicates a strong commitment to publishing complete and impactful studies. The data suggests that the university's researchers avoid the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and valuing significant new knowledge over volume.
