| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.046 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.573 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.490 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.925 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.004 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.019 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.515 |
Jiamusi University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating exceptional strengths in certain areas while facing critical challenges in others. With an overall risk score of 1.160, the institution shows a commendable absence of risk in practices related to academic endogamy and productivity inflation, with very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These strengths suggest a solid foundation in responsible research conduct. However, this positive profile is severely undermined by a significant risk in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-level risks in Multiple Affiliations, Output in Discontinued Journals, and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. Thematically, the university shows notable strength in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified integrity risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly threaten the credibility of these core research areas and conflict with any institutional mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. To secure its long-term reputation, it is recommended that Jiamusi University implement a targeted strategy to address its specific vulnerabilities, leveraging its existing integrity strengths to foster a more resilient and transparent research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.046, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at Jiamusi University compared to the country's low-risk standard warrants a review. It may signal a strategic tendency to use affiliations to inflate institutional credit, a practice that diverges from the more conservative national norm and could dilute the perceived contribution of the university's researchers.
With a Z-score of 3.573, the institution displays a critical level of risk that is in severe discrepancy with the national average of -0.050. This figure is highly atypical for the national context and requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors. However, a rate this significantly higher than the global average is a powerful alert to a potential systemic failure in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This suggests a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, possibly indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.490, indicating a very low risk. This stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045, which falls into the medium-risk category. This result signals a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate shows it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' This indicates that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting strong external engagement and a healthy level of independent scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of 1.925 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.024. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its peers to the risk of publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It highlights an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.004, the institution maintains a prudent, low-risk profile, performing with more rigor than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.721. Both the university and the country show low risk in this area, but the institution's even lower score indicates a particularly careful management of authorship practices. This suggests a conscious effort to avoid the inflation of author lists, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. The data indicates that the university is effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of 1.019 signifies a medium-level risk, which acts as a monitoring alert due to its stark contrast with the country's very low-risk average of -0.809. This unusual gap for the national standard suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. A high value in this indicator signals a sustainability risk, as it implies that the institution's measured excellence could be exogenous and not reflective of its core internal capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its impact metrics are the result of genuine internal strength or a positioning strategy within collaborations led by others.
The university shows a very low risk in this indicator with a Z-score of -1.413, demonstrating a form of preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk level with a score of 0.425. This result is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's very low risk in this area aligns perfectly with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the absence of risk signals is in sync with the national standard. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's minimal use of such channels indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and a focus on achieving global visibility for its research, rather than using internal publications as potential 'fast tracks' for inflating academic output without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits total operational silence on this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.186, which is even lower than the country's already very low-risk average of -0.515. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, is a clear indicator of robust scientific practice. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate productivity. The university's exceptionally low score suggests a strong institutional culture that values the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over the artificial multiplication of publication metrics, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record.
