Henan Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Henan Normal University presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.110 that indicates general alignment with sound research practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of retracted output and minimal reliance on institutional journals, suggesting robust quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring include authorship and affiliation patterns, specifically the rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, which show a moderate deviation from national norms. These observations are contextualized by the university's strong performance in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Energy, Environmental Science, Chemistry, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. The institution's mission to "reinforce talents and educate the country" is fundamentally supported by its solid integrity foundation, yet the identified risks in authorship could undermine this goal by potentially prioritizing metric accumulation over genuine intellectual contribution. To fully realize its mission, the university is encouraged to build upon its strengths by proactively reviewing its authorship and collaboration policies, ensuring that its recognized excellence is synonymous with the highest standards of scientific responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.404 shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation from the national standard suggests that the university's affiliation practices are more pronounced than those of its peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this heightened rate warrants a review to ensure that these are the result of substantive partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Verifying the nature of these affiliations is key to maintaining transparency and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.653, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive signal. The absence of significant retraction events suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are effective and well-aligned with a culture of integrity. This performance indicates a responsible and rigorous approach to research that successfully prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.113, positioning it at a low-risk level, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.045, a score indicating medium risk. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity observed at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a rate below the national trend, the university avoids creating 'echo chambers' and signals that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.220 is notably lower than the national average of -0.024, showcasing a prudent profile in its publication strategy. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively steering its researchers away from dissemination channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This diligent selection of journals protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices and demonstrates a strong commitment to information literacy and the responsible use of research resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for hyper-authorship is 0.292, a medium-risk signal that moderately deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.721. This discrepancy suggests the university is more prone to publishing works with extensive author lists than its national counterparts. Outside of disciplines where massive collaboration is standard, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This serves as a signal for the institution to review its authorship practices and ensure they distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and honorary or political authorship.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.555, a low-risk value that nonetheless shows a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.809. This gap, while not alarming, indicates the presence of a minor signal of risk activity not seen in the rest of the country. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may have a slightly higher dependency on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on building internal capacity to ensure that its high-impact research is increasingly driven by its own structural capabilities, thereby securing long-term sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.446, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is at a medium-risk level, a figure that is nearly identical to the national average of 0.425. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the risk level reflects shared practices or pressures at a national level. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This shared trend suggests a need to evaluate incentive structures that may encourage risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, in order to protect the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, significantly below the national low-risk average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not depending on its own journals for dissemination, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice effectively mitigates the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party, reinforcing the credibility of its research output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.180 indicates a low risk of redundant output, but it represents a slight divergence from the national average of -0.515, which is in the very low-risk category. This suggests the university shows minor signals of risk activity that are largely absent in the broader national context. While the overall risk is low, this subtle trend could point to isolated instances of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. It serves as a reminder to continually reinforce the value of publishing complete, significant studies over prioritizing publication volume.