| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.444 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.155 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.530 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.630 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.875 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.484 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.252 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.543 | -0.515 |
Dalian University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.196 that indicates a generally healthy performance with specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in governance and research ethics, particularly in its very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. These results signal a strong commitment to external validation and quality over quantity. However, areas of moderate risk have been identified in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which require immediate attention to safeguard institutional reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most prominent thematic areas include Computer Science, Medicine, and Energy. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could undermine any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility, as they suggest potential gaps in pre-publication quality control and due diligence in selecting publication venues. A proactive approach focused on strengthening researcher training in publication ethics and information literacy will be crucial to mitigate these vulnerabilities and align all operational facets with a culture of unimpeachable integrity.
The institution demonstrates a prudent approach to academic collaboration, with a Z-score of -0.444, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.062. This positioning within a low-risk context suggests that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a healthy resistance to using this practice for strategic inflation of institutional credit, ensuring that affiliations reflect genuine collaborative work.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed, with the institution registering a medium-risk Z-score of 0.155, in contrast to the country's low-risk score of -0.050. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution effectively isolates itself from national risk dynamics, showing a very low Z-score of -1.530 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.045. This preventive stance indicates that the university does not replicate the risk patterns observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting research continuity; however, the institution's exceptionally low rate signals a strong preference for external validation over internal 'echo chambers'. This approach mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence is being built on recognition from the global community, not internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 0.630 places it in a medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this particular risk factor. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The score suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.875, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the already low-risk national standard of -0.721. This demonstrates a commendable ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and practices of author list inflation. By keeping this rate low, the university effectively avoids the dilution of individual accountability and transparency, signaling a healthy resistance to 'honorary' or political authorship and reinforcing a culture of meaningful contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.484 represents a slight divergence from the national context, which has a very low-risk score of -0.809. This indicates the presence of minor risk signals that are not apparent in the rest of the country. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. While the institution's risk level is still low, this divergence warrants monitoring to ensure that its excellence metrics consistently result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership in collaborations.
A clear case of preventive isolation is evident, as the institution's very low-risk Z-score of -1.252 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national level of 0.425. This shows the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. The institution's low score indicates a strong culture that balances quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard of -0.010, demonstrating low-profile consistency. This absence of risk signals indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, thereby preventing potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice reinforces a commitment to independent external peer review, enhances the global visibility of its research, and ensures internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits integrity synchrony with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.543 that is in almost perfect alignment with the country's score of -0.515, both within a very low-risk context. This total alignment reflects an environment of maximum scientific security. The data confirms that the institution avoids the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach ensures that its research contributes significant new knowledge rather than over-burdening the review system with fragmented data.
