| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.223 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.977 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.378 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.285 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.811 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.074 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.011 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.687 | -0.515 |
Henan Agricultural University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional control alongside specific, significant vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.383, the institution demonstrates robust governance in key areas such as intellectual leadership, publication ethics, and academic endogamy, where its risk indicators are very low. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by a medium-risk signal in the rate of multiple affiliations and, most critically, a significant-risk alert for retracted publications. These weaknesses require targeted intervention to protect the institution's reputation, which is otherwise bolstered by its outstanding research performance in several fields. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national and global positions in Veterinary (Top 10 in China), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (Top 40 in China), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 100 in China), and Medicine (Top 110 in China). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risk in publication retractions directly challenges the principles of excellence and social responsibility inherent to any leading academic entity. By strategically addressing these integrity gaps, the university can ensure its operational practices fully align with its demonstrated research strengths, securing a foundation of trust for its future contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.223, while the national average is -0.062. This moderate deviation from the national standard indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to author affiliations than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here suggests a need to review institutional policies. This value could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and verifying the transparency and appropriateness of these affiliations is recommended to ensure credit is attributed correctly.
The institution's Z-score of 1.977 stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.050. This severe discrepancy indicates that the risk activity in this area is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This 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 to prevent further reputational damage.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.378, which is well below the national average of 0.045. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to self-citation observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive internal validation. This suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous dynamics.
With a Z-score of -0.285, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.024. This indicates that the institution manages its publication processes with greater rigor than its national peers. By effectively avoiding discontinued journals, the university demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects its research from being associated with media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby safeguarding its reputation and avoiding the waste of resources on low-quality or 'predatory' outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -0.811 is lower than the national average of -0.721, reflecting a prudent profile in managing authorship practices. This suggests the institution is more rigorous than the national standard in ensuring that author lists are appropriate for the research context. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.074, significantly lower than the national average of -0.809. This reflects a state of total operational silence in this risk indicator, with performance exceeding even the low-risk national benchmark. A very low gap demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity. This is an indicator of scientific maturity and sustainability, as it confirms that the institution exercises strong intellectual leadership in its collaborations and that its high-impact research is a direct result of its own scholarly direction.
The institution's Z-score of -0.011 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.425. This gap highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal controls appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of hyperprolificacy that are more prevalent at the national level. By maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme publication volumes. This signals a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, steering clear of risks like coercive or honorary authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with low-profile consistency, as its absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the low-risk national standard of -0.010. This indicates a healthy and appropriate use of in-house journals, avoiding excessive dependence on them for dissemination. By not overusing institutional journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.687, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.515. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that surpasses the national benchmark. This excellent result indicates that the institution's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. It reflects a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over the division of work into minimal publishable units, thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
