| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.136 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.042 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.532 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.044 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.580 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.826 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.049 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.471 | -0.515 |
Henan University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.235, which indicates a performance well within the parameters of responsible research conduct. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for independent intellectual leadership, a healthy balance between productivity and quality, and a commitment to external validation, showing minimal risk in areas such as the impact gap from collaborations, hyperprolific authorship, and institutional self-citation. These positive indicators are complemented by strong academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting excellence in key thematic areas, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Psychology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Arts and Humanities. However, moderate risk signals in the rates of multiple affiliations and retracted publications warrant strategic attention. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these risk factors could potentially undermine any institutional commitment to excellence and social trust by creating perceptions of inflated credit or inconsistent quality control. To consolidate its strong foundation, it is recommended that the university leverage its clear areas of integrity to develop targeted policies that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its demonstrated academic strengths and global reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.136, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at this institution signals a need to review affiliation practices. It is crucial to ensure that these patterns reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could compromise the transparency of its academic contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.042, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.050. This discrepancy points to a moderate deviation from the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This alert indicates a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, possibly pointing to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -0.532, a notably low value, especially when compared to the national average of 0.045. This result highlights a significant institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate a risk that is more prevalent systemically across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university successfully avoids the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This practice confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.044 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.024, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's practices for selecting publication venues are consistent with national standards. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, but the institution's low score indicates that its researchers are generally exercising due diligence, avoiding channels that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.580, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.721. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, where the university shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, a rising rate can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish necessary massive collaboration from potentially "honorary" attributions.
With a Z-score of -0.826, the institution is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.809, demonstrating integrity synchrony in a secure environment. This very low score is a significant strength, indicating that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity. It confirms that the impact of its research is driven by projects where it exercises intellectual leadership, avoiding a dependency on external partners and showcasing a sustainable model of academic excellence.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.049, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a very low rate, the institution shows a strong commitment to balancing quantity with quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, reflecting a low-profile consistency that aligns with the secure national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This near-absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of its publication practices. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's low reliance on such channels ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its global visibility and the competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.471 is almost identical to the national average of -0.515, indicating integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This result shows a clear absence of "salami slicing," the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant work, rather than prioritizing volume, upholds the quality of the scientific record and demonstrates responsible research conduct.
