| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.283 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.559 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.031 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.144 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.911 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.678 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.686 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.284 | -0.515 |
Guizhou Normal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.248 indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in its control over publication quality, evidenced by very low rates of retracted output and minimal use of institutional journals, alongside effective management of authorship practices that outperform national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and publication in discontinued journals, which suggest vulnerabilities in citation patterns and dissemination strategies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key academic strengths are concentrated in areas such as Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these findings are crucial for any HEI committed to excellence and social responsibility. The identified risks, particularly those related to insular citation practices and the use of low-quality publication channels, could undermine the external validation and global impact essential for true academic excellence. We recommend leveraging this report as a strategic tool to reinforce the institution's clear commitment to quality control while proactively refining its policies on author affiliation and journal selection to ensure its research practices fully align with its reputational goals.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is 0.283, showing a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.062. This indicates that the university demonstrates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate signals a need to review current practices to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the university's academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.559, the university shows a very low Rate of Retracted Output, positioning it favorably against the already low national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are not only effective but also align with a national environment of responsible scientific practice. The near absence of these risk signals is a positive indicator of robust supervision and a strong integrity culture, where potential errors are managed effectively prior to publication.
The university's Rate of Institutional Self-Citation registers a Z-score of 1.031, which, while in the same medium-risk category as the national average (0.045), indicates a significantly higher exposure to this risk. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to developing scientific 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines, but this disproportionately high rate warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community.
A moderate risk is observed in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, with the university's Z-score at 0.144, deviating from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to channeling research through outlets of questionable quality compared to its peers. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as a high proportion of work in such journals exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The university demonstrates a prudent profile in its Rate of Hyper-Authored Output, with a Z-score of -0.911 that is even lower than the national average of -0.721. This indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This strong performance suggests an effective ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
A slight divergence from the national baseline is noted in the Gap between the impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership, where the university's Z-score is -0.678 compared to the country's very low score of -0.809. This subtle signal of risk activity, not prominent in the rest of the country, suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be somewhat dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This invites strategic reflection on building internal capacity to ensure that its high-impact research is increasingly driven by its own structural capabilities.
The university shows notable institutional resilience regarding the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.686, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. By curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the institution demonstrates a commitment to balancing quantity with quality, thereby avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university maintains a very low Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, performing better than the low-risk national average of -0.010. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard of integrity and demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and credibility.
The university's Rate of Redundant Output shows a slight divergence from the national context, with a Z-score of -0.284 indicating a low risk, whereas the country's average of -0.515 is in the very low-risk category. This subtle signal suggests a minor presence of practices that warrant monitoring. While citing previous work is normal, this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity—a practice that can distort the scientific record and should be discouraged in favor of more significant, cohesive contributions.
