Nanning Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Nanning Normal University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.995, the institution's performance indicates a higher-than-average exposure to integrity risks, primarily driven by a significant rate of retracted publications and elevated activity in multiple affiliations and discontinued journals. However, these challenges are counterbalanced by remarkable strengths, particularly in its very low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output, where it outperforms even the national standards. These strengths suggest a robust internal culture in specific areas of research practice. Thematically, the university demonstrates notable national standing in several disciplines, with its strongest SCImago Institutions Rankings in Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology; Energy; and Social Sciences. As the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, it is crucial to note that the identified risk of a high retraction rate fundamentally conflicts with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. This specific vulnerability threatens to undermine public trust and the credibility of its research contributions. The university is therefore encouraged to leverage its clear operational strengths to implement targeted interventions, fortifying its quality assurance mechanisms to ensure its scientific output fully aligns with its academic potential and leadership in its key disciplines.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.351 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices involving multiple affiliations. While such affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate warrants a review. This value could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can dilute institutional identity and misrepresent collaborative contributions. A closer examination of affiliation patterns is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive partnerships rather than metric-driven strategies.

Rate of Retracted Output

There is a severe discrepancy between the institution's Z-score of 7.490 and the national Z-score of -0.050. This atypical and critically high rate of retractions is an urgent red flag requiring a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate so far above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is not merely a series of isolated incidents but a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. Immediate qualitative verification by management is essential to diagnose the root causes and restore confidence in the university's research oversight processes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.979, contrasting sharply with the national Z-score of 0.045. This result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national trend points towards a medium risk of 'echo chambers'. Nanning Normal University, however, shows no signs of endogamous impact inflation. Its very low score suggests that its academic influence is validated by the global community, not by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.253 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to publishing in journals that cease operations, often due to quality or ethical issues. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A Z-score at this level indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.174, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, consistent with and even stronger than the national standard of -0.721. This absence of risk signals in hyper-authorship aligns well with the national context. The data confirms that the university's authorship practices are sound, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and the risk of author list inflation. This positive result indicates a culture of appropriate credit attribution, where individual accountability and transparency are upheld.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.641 reflects a low-risk profile, yet it marks a slight divergence from the country's very low-risk average of -0.809. This suggests the emergence of minor risk signals that are not prevalent nationally. While the institution demonstrates solid internal research capacity, this small gap indicates that its overall scientific prestige may be slightly more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role, compared to the national baseline. This finding invites strategic reflection on strengthening intellectual leadership to ensure that its reputation for excellence is fully structural and sustainable from within.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows outstanding governance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.245, in stark contrast to the national Z-score of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the risk dynamics present in the national system. While high productivity can be legitimate, the national context shows a medium risk of extreme publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is firmly in the very low-risk category, reinforcing the low-risk national trend (-0.010). This low-profile consistency shows that the university avoids over-reliance on its own publication channels. This is a sign of strong integrity, as it mitigates the conflict of interest that arises when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and avoids the risk of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.940, the institution exhibits a near-total operational silence on this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, is exemplary. It indicates a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete and coherent studies rather than fragmenting data into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This practice prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over volume, contributing positively to the scientific record and respecting the academic review system.