| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.793 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.453 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.222 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.999 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.260 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.111 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.980 | -0.515 |
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.203 that indicates a performance slightly above the expected baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over research quality and leadership, evidenced by very low risk signals in the impact of its own-led research, rate of retracted output, and avoidance of redundant publications. These positive indicators suggest a culture focused on substantive, high-quality scientific contributions. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two areas requiring strategic attention: a medium-risk level in the rate of hyperprolific authors and, more critically, a notable tendency to publish in discontinued journals, which deviates from the national trend. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates world-class excellence in specific thematic areas, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 48th globally), Medicine (412th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (561st). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risk of publishing in low-quality channels directly conflicts with the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and social responsibility. To fully align its operational integrity with its clear thematic leadership, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its journal selection policies and promoting information literacy among its researchers, thereby safeguarding its considerable reputation and research investment.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.793, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.062. This result suggests a prudent and rigorous approach to managing collaborative affiliations, with risk signals that are notably below the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's low rate indicates that its collaborative framework is well-controlled, effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This demonstrates a clear and transparent attribution of scientific output.
With a Z-score of -0.559 (very low risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.050, the institution shows a consistent and effective approach to quality control. The near absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard for post-publication corrections. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but a consistently low rate, as seen here, strongly suggests that the quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and systemic. This serves as a positive indicator of the institution's commitment to methodological rigor and a resilient integrity culture.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.453 (low risk), which stands in favorable contrast to the national average of 0.045 (medium risk). This difference highlights the institution's resilience and its ability to mitigate systemic risks that may be more prevalent at the national level. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate demonstrates that it successfully avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers.' This suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into the international scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 1.222 (medium risk) marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024 (low risk), indicating a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its peers. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. This finding suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and formalize guidance for researchers to prevent the misallocation of valuable research efforts into 'predatory' or low-impact publishing practices, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.999, the institution maintains a lower risk profile in hyper-authorship than the national average of -0.721. This indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, an uncontrolled increase can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's prudent profile in this area suggests that it effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency in scientific contributions.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.260, significantly better than the already very low-risk national average of -0.809. This signals a complete absence of dependency risk, even when compared to a strong national baseline. A wide positive gap can suggest that an institution's prestige is overly reliant on external partners where it does not hold intellectual leadership. In contrast, this university's very low score indicates that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, driven by high-impact research where its own researchers are in leadership roles. This is a clear sign of sustainable, self-sufficient scientific excellence and capacity.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 0.111 (medium risk), which is notably lower than the national average of 0.425 (medium risk). This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common or pronounced across the country. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the plausibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's relative control in this area indicates a better balance between quantity and quality, although the medium risk level still warrants monitoring to prevent potential issues like coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.010, the institution demonstrates a consistent and healthy approach to its publication strategy. The absence of significant risk signals aligns with the national standard and points to strong integration with the global scientific community. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise concerns about academic endogamy and bypassing independent peer review. The university's very low rate in this indicator is a positive sign that it prioritizes external, competitive validation for its research, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.980, reflecting an almost complete absence of risk signals and a performance that is even stronger than the national average of -0.515. This operational silence in a key integrity indicator is a testament to the quality and substance of its research output. High rates of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate publication counts. The university's extremely low score suggests its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant contributions rather than prioritizing volume, a practice that strengthens the scientific record and reflects a mature research culture.
