| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.608 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.090 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.911 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.077 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.094 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.284 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.586 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.570 | -0.515 |
Jiangsu University demonstrates a robust overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of 0.048 indicating a very low level of vulnerability. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining scientific autonomy, with a negligible gap between its overall impact and that of its internally-led research, and shows excellent control over redundant publications and the use of institutional journals. These strengths are foundational to its outstanding international positioning, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in key thematic areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 19th in China), Energy (29th), Environmental Science (32nd), and Chemistry (29th). However, the analysis identifies three areas requiring strategic attention: the rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authors, all of which present a medium level of risk. While the institution's mission is not specified, these vulnerabilities could potentially undermine core academic values of excellence and social responsibility by creating a perception that quantitative metrics are prioritized over the quality and transparency of scientific contributions. By proactively addressing these specific areas, Jiangsu University can further solidify its reputation as a global leader, ensuring its remarkable research output is unequivocally matched by the highest standards of scientific integrity.
The university presents a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.608 compared to the country's average of -0.062. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that increase this rate. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this heightened signal warrants a review to ensure that collaborative practices are not inadvertently leading to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its academic contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.090, which is lower than the national average of -0.050, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in this area. This favorable result suggests that its internal quality control mechanisms prior to publication are managed with a high degree of rigor. The data indicates that the university is effectively minimizing the occurrence of both unintentional errors and potential malpractice, reflecting a strong and responsible culture of scientific supervision and integrity.
The institution shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.911 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.045. This disparity indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to practices that can lead to concerning scientific isolation. Such a high rate warns of the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately validated by its own work rather than by the broader scientific community, creating a risk of operating within an 'echo chamber'.
The university maintains a prudent profile, with a Z-score of -0.077 that is below the national average of -0.024. This indicates a commendable level of due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels for its research. By effectively avoiding publication in journals that do not meet international quality or ethical standards, the institution protects its reputation and ensures its scientific resources are invested in credible and impactful outlets.
A prudent profile is evident in this indicator, as the institution's Z-score of -1.094 is considerably lower than the national standard of -0.721. This suggests that the university's authorship practices are well-managed and adhere to norms that prevent author list inflation. By maintaining this control, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that authorship credit is assigned appropriately and reflects genuine intellectual contribution.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, a sign of exceptional scientific autonomy. Its Z-score of -1.284 is significantly better than the already strong national average of -0.809. This result confirms that there is no risk of its prestige being dependent on external partners; the impact of its research is driven by its own intellectual leadership. This indicates that the university's scientific excellence is structural, sustainable, and generated from its own internal capacity.
A high exposure to risk is noted here, with the university's Z-score of 1.586 substantially exceeding the national average of 0.425. This elevated rate serves as an alert for potential imbalances between publication quantity and quality. Extreme individual productivity can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal underlying risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.268 indicating a near-total absence of risk, a performance that is stronger than the low-risk national standard (-0.010). This demonstrates a clear commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest, ensuring its research consistently undergoes independent, external peer review.
In this indicator, the institution displays total operational silence, with a Z-score of -0.570 that is even lower than the national average of -0.515. This excellent result indicates that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. It reflects a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant, consolidated knowledge over the sheer volume of publications, thereby strengthening the quality of the scientific record.
