| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.154 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.465 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.134 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.058 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.132 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.769 | -0.515 |
China West Normal University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.306 that indicates performance significantly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its intellectual autonomy, showing a minimal gap between its overall impact and that of its internally-led research, alongside a commendable resistance to hyper-prolific authorship and redundant publication practices. These factors point to a culture that prioritizes quality and substantive contribution. However, areas requiring strategic attention include moderate elevations in the rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publications in discontinued journals, which deviate from national trends and could pose reputational risks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Energy, Veterinary, Chemistry, and Business, Management and Accounting. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities, though not critical, could challenge the universal academic goals of achieving excellence and upholding social responsibility. By proactively addressing these moderate risk signals, China West Normal University can further solidify its strong integrity foundation and enhance its standing as a leading institution committed to transparent and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.154, while the national average is -0.062. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the observed rate suggests a need to review institutional policies. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and monitoring this trend is key to ensuring that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborative work.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.184, compared to a national average of -0.050. This result points to a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its pre-publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes resulting from the honest correction of errors. In this context, the institution's very low rate indicates that its quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, minimizing the incidence of systemic errors or potential malpractice that could otherwise lead to post-publication corrections.
The institution's Z-score is 0.465, notably higher than the national average of 0.045. This value suggests a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice, as the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate may signal the presence of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.134, in contrast to the national average of -0.024. This moderate deviation suggests the university has a greater sensitivity than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable outlets. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current score indicates that a portion of its 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 reinforce information literacy among its researchers.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.058, which is lower than the national average of -0.721. This figure reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation and dilute individual accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy approach that favors transparency and guards against the proliferation of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score is -1.132, a figure that is even lower than the national average of -0.809. This signals a total operational silence in this risk area, with an absence of negative signals that is more pronounced than the national norm. A wide positive gap in this indicator often suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The university's excellent result, however, demonstrates remarkable scientific autonomy, indicating that its excellence metrics are the result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership.
The institution records an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates a strong defense against potential imbalances between quantity and quality, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, compared to a national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency shows that the absence of risk signals at the university aligns with the national standard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's minimal reliance on such channels demonstrates a commitment to seeking validation from the international scientific community, thereby strengthening the credibility and reach of its research.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.769, performing better than the national average of -0.515. This result signifies a total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more marked than the national average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice that artificially inflates productivity. The university's extremely low score suggests a strong institutional culture focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than prioritizing volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
