| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.146 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.854 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.048 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.158 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.762 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.169 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.689 | -0.515 |
Guizhou University demonstrates a solid overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a global risk score of -0.145. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices, with exceptionally low risk in hyper-authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. These areas of excellence are complemented by effective mitigation of risks related to retracted publications and hyperprolific authors, where the university performs better than the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a high exposure to institutional self-citation and a moderate deviation in the rate of multiple affiliations and output in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its high national rankings in key thematic areas such as Veterinary (44th), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (57th), Social Sciences (90th), and Computer Science (90th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge the universal academic values of objective excellence and social responsibility. An over-reliance on internal validation or strategic affiliations can create a perception of inflated impact, which contradicts the principle of transparent and externally validated scientific contribution. Overall, Guizhou University is in a strong position, and it is recommended that it leverage its clear strengths to develop targeted strategies for the identified medium-risk areas, thereby reinforcing its leadership in both research and ethical scientific conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.146, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This indicates a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting the university has a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's higher rate signals a potential over-reliance on this practice. This warrants a review to ensure that affiliations are primarily driven by substantive scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” a practice that can distort perceptions of institutional contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.127, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position compared to the national average of -0.050. This performance suggests a prudent and rigorous approach to research oversight. Retractions can stem from various causes, but a low rate is a positive indicator of effective pre-publication quality control. The university's ability to maintain a lower retraction rate than the national standard suggests its integrity culture and methodological supervision are robust, successfully preventing the types of systemic errors or malpractice that could otherwise damage its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.854, marking a high level of exposure when compared to the national average of 0.045. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the institution's rate is significantly more pronounced. While a degree of self-citation is expected in focused research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation. It presents a clear risk of creating an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally, leading to endogamous impact inflation rather than recognition from the broader global scientific community.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.048, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context, which has a score of -0.024. This divergence serves as an alert regarding the institution's due diligence in selecting publication venues. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose the institution to significant reputational risk, as these venues often fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This score suggests a need to strengthen information literacy among researchers to ensure that scientific output is channeled through reputable and sustainable media, avoiding predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.158, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low-risk profile, which is fully consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national average of -0.721. This absence of risk signals indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms. It suggests a healthy culture of transparency and accountability, effectively avoiding the risk of author list inflation and ensuring that credit is awarded for meaningful intellectual contributions rather than through 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.762 shows a slight divergence from the national average of -0.809, where the country shows virtually no risk. A negative score in this indicator is a positive sign, indicating that the impact of research led by the institution is strong. While the university shows a minor signal of risk activity compared to the inert national environment, its performance fundamentally negates the risk of dependency on external partners for prestige. This result points toward a high degree of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its scientific excellence is structural and self-driven.
The institution's Z-score of -0.169 places it in a low-risk category, showcasing significant institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This performance indicates that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks associated with hyper-prolificacy that are more prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low incidence of extreme publication volumes, the institution avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, fostering an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution exhibits a complete absence of risk signals, a performance that is not only consistent with but significantly stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.010. This very low rate of publication in its own journals demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice effectively mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through competitive international channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked internally.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.689, indicating a total operational silence on this risk indicator and performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.515. This exemplary result suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes substantive scientific advancement over artificial productivity gains. The absence of signals for 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units—shows a respect for the scientific record and the peer-review system, reinforcing the university's commitment to producing impactful and coherent research.
