Dalian Ocean University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Dalian Ocean University presents a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a global risk score of -0.212. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in core research practices, with very low risk signals in areas such as publication retractions, hyper-authorship, redundant output, and reliance on institutional journals. This foundation of scientific rigor is particularly relevant given the university's strong competitive positioning according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, especially in disciplines like Veterinary, Mathematics, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Social Sciences. However, this solid performance is contrasted by medium-risk vulnerabilities related to institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, multiple affiliations, and publication in discontinued journals. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these risks could challenge the universal academic pursuits of excellence and social responsibility. Unaddressed, they may create a perception that quantitative metrics are prioritized over qualitative impact, potentially undermining the credibility of its thematic achievements. Dalian Ocean University is therefore encouraged to leverage its foundational strengths to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research contributions are recognized not only for their volume but for their unimpeachable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.021, which moderately deviates from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity than its national peers to practices involving multiple institutional affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this deviation warrants a review of internal policies. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and it is crucial to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.625, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a figure that is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national standard (-0.050). This absence of risk signals points to highly effective quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication. This result suggests a strong integrity culture, where potential errors are corrected responsibly before they enter the scientific record, thereby avoiding the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a high retraction rate would imply.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.194, a figure that indicates high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.045. Although both operate in a medium-risk context, the institution's rate is significantly more pronounced. This disproportionately high value warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the university's academic influence may be oversized by internal citation patterns rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.166 marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.024. This indicates that the university's researchers show a greater sensitivity than their peers to publishing in journals that are later discontinued. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied 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 and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.318, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, aligning perfectly with the low-risk national context (-0.721). This absence of risk signals indicates that authorship practices at the university are well-managed and transparent. This strong performance suggests the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability and maintaining the integrity of authorship credit.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.870 in this indicator, reflecting a total operational silence on this risk and performing even better than the strong national average of -0.809. This result indicates an excellent balance between the impact generated by all its publications and that of the research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. Such a healthy, low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in external collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 0.551 places it in a high-exposure category, particularly as it exceeds the national average of 0.425 within a shared medium-risk environment. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. This trend alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, as such productivity levels often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant closer examination.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals for publication, a positive signal that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (-0.010). This practice reflects a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively mitigates the conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.761 signifies a total absence of risk signals related to redundant publications, a result that is even stronger than the very low-risk national benchmark (-0.515). This exceptional performance indicates a robust institutional culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. It confirms that the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units—is not a concern, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and the efficiency of the peer-review system.