| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.493 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.164 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.226 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.180 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.769 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.416 | -0.515 |
Chongqing Normal University demonstrates a solid overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a global risk score of -0.391, which indicates a predominantly low-risk operational environment. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust governance over authorship practices and quality control, with very low risk signals in the rates of Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These results point to a culture that prioritizes accountability and external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically a medium-risk exposure to publication in Discontinued Journals and a notable rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing). According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly prominent in thematic areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Chemistry; and Energy. While the identified risks do not currently overshadow these achievements, they could undermine the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent in any academic mission by affecting the perceived quality and originality of its research. To consolidate its strong standing, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its publication strategies and originality verification protocols, transforming these vulnerabilities into new pillars of institutional integrity.
The institution demonstrates a more rigorous approach to managing affiliations than the national standard, with a Z-score of -0.493, which is significantly lower than the country's score of -0.062. This prudent profile suggests that the university maintains clear and transparent affiliation policies. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate effectively avoids practices like "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, which can be more prevalent elsewhere in the country, thereby reinforcing a commitment to the clear and honest attribution of academic work.
The institution's very low rate of retractions (Z-score: -0.447) is consistent with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.050), indicating that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors. However, the absence of a significant signal in this area suggests a strong institutional integrity culture and robust methodological rigor, which successfully prevent the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that would necessitate a higher volume of post-publication corrections.
The university shows notable resilience against national trends in self-citation. With a Z-score of -0.164, it operates at a low-risk level, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.045. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the country's systemic risks in this area. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, which can signal scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, the university ensures its work is validated by the broader global community, reinforcing the external recognition of its academic influence.
A point of concern emerges in the selection of publication venues, where the institution's Z-score of 0.226 indicates a medium-risk level. This represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.024), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.180), aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.721). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of well-governed and transparent authorship practices. The data suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, which is legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, and problematic practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's profile shows a slight divergence from the national trend regarding the impact of its led research. While the country as a whole has a very low-risk Z-score of -0.809, the university's score of -0.769 falls into the low-risk category, indicating a minor signal of risk activity not apparent at the national level. This suggests a small but noticeable gap where the institution's overall impact may be more reliant on collaborations than the impact generated by research where it holds intellectual leadership. While not a major concern, it invites reflection on building structural, endogenous capacity to ensure its scientific prestige is sustainable and self-generated rather than dependent and exogenous.
The university effectively isolates itself from national trends related to hyperprolific authorship. Its Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This preventive isolation demonstrates strong institutional oversight. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This ensures a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
In line with the national context, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals for publication (Z-score: -0.268), consistent with the country's low-risk score of -0.010. This absence of risk signals indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By not depending on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest where the institution is both judge and party, the university avoids the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
This indicator presents a significant monitoring alert, as the institution's Z-score of 0.416 places it at a medium-risk level. This is an unusual risk level for the national standard, which is very low at -0.515, and requires a review of its causes. A high value in redundant output, characterized by massive bibliographic overlap between publications, suggests that practices like 'salami slicing' may be occurring. This involves dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
