Jiangxi Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jiangxi Normal University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.131 that indicates a general alignment with sound research practices and minimal systemic vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its effective mitigation of risks prevalent at the national level, particularly concerning institutional self-citation and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors, alongside exceptionally low-risk activity in hyper-authored output and publishing in institutional journals. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring have been identified, specifically a moderate deviation from national norms in the rates of multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates significant thematic strengths and high national standing in disciplines such as Psychology (ranked 81st in China), Earth and Planetary Sciences (97th), and Computer Science (145th). To protect and enhance this academic reputation, it is crucial to address the identified moderate risks, as practices that could be perceived as metric inflation or a lack of due diligence may conflict with the universal academic mission of pursuing excellence and social responsibility. A proactive review of affiliation and publication selection policies will ensure the institution's commendable research output is built upon an unassailable foundation of transparency and integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.405, which is significantly higher than the national average of -0.062. This result indicates a moderate deviation from the national norm, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. This indicator warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic credibility.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.306, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.050. This suggests that the university's internal processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a low rate like this one points towards effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This performance indicates that systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or a lack of methodological rigor are being successfully prevented, upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution shows significant resilience against a risk that is more pronounced at the national level, where the average Z-score is 0.045. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks in this area. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the formation of 'echo chambers'. This performance successfully mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring that the institution's academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.009 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk compared to its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals suggests that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.189 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.721. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This very low rate indicates that authorship practices at the institution are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship. This result reflects a strong culture of individual accountability in research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.495 represents a slight divergence from the national context, which has a very low-risk average of -0.809. This indicates the emergence of minor risk signals that are not as apparent in the rest of the country. A positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's score, while in the low-risk category, suggests a need to monitor this dynamic and foster intellectual leadership to ensure that its excellent impact metrics are a reflection of structural, home-grown research strength.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.371, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.425. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present elsewhere in the country. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing'. The university's low score in this area indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution maintains an exceptionally low-risk profile, far below the national average of -0.010. This result demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. This indicates that the university's research output is overwhelmingly directed toward external, independent channels, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves greater global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.394 signifies a slight divergence from the national environment, where the average is -0.515 (very low risk). This result suggests the presence of minor risk signals related to data fragmentation that are not as common across the country. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. While the institution's risk level is low, this signal warrants attention to ensure that all published work represents significant new knowledge and does not distort the scientific evidence base.