| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.431 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.761 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.243 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.007 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.993 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.916 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.359 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.769 | -0.515 |
Jilin Agricultural University demonstrates a complex profile with an overall integrity score of 0.385, indicating a generally controlled environment but with specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust intellectual leadership, minimal academic endogamy, and effective management of author productivity, as evidenced by very low risk signals in the gap between its total and led-research impact, output in institutional journals, and rates of redundant publications. However, these positive aspects are offset by a significant alert regarding the rate of retracted output and medium-level risks in multiple affiliations and institutional self-citation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's scientific excellence is concentrated in key areas such as Veterinary, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Medicine, where it holds prominent national rankings. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this analysis, any commitment to research excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally challenged by the identified risks. A high rate of retractions, in particular, directly undermines the pursuit of reliable knowledge and public trust. By strategically addressing these vulnerabilities, especially in pre-publication quality control and affiliation policies, Jilin Agricultural University can better protect its strong thematic reputation and solidify its role as a leading academic center.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.431, placing it in a medium-risk category, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062 (low risk). This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The observed deviation warrants a review to ensure that affiliation policies are transparent and that all listed affiliations correspond to substantive intellectual contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.761, a value that indicates a significant risk level and stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.050, which is in the low-risk range. This severe discrepancy suggests that the institution's rate of retractions is highly atypical for its national context, signaling an urgent need for a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This high Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific credibility.
With a Z-score of 0.243, the institution's rate of self-citation is in the medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.045. However, the university's score is notably higher, indicating a greater exposure to this particular risk compared to its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This high value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that should be monitored to encourage external validation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.007, a low-risk value that is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.024. This result indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size. The university's researchers appear to be effectively selecting appropriate and stable dissemination channels, avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This demonstrates good due diligence and protects the institution from the reputational risks associated with publishing in low-quality or 'predatory' venues.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.993, a low-risk value that is more favorable than the national average of -0.721. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The institution's lower-than-average score indicates a healthy approach to authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.916, which is even lower than the country's already very low-risk average of -0.809. This result indicates a total operational silence regarding this risk, with performance that surpasses the national standard. A very low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity. This reflects a healthy model where excellence metrics are the result of genuine intellectual leadership within the institution, rather than a dependency on external partners for impact, ensuring the sustainability of its research influence.
With a Z-score of -0.359 (low risk), the institution demonstrates institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.425 (medium risk). This indicates that the university's internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks related to hyperprolificacy that are more prevalent at the national level. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's controlled environment suggests it effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or productivity inflation, fostering a culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard, which sits at -0.010 (low risk). The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with a secure national environment. This indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated competitively, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.769, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the national average of -0.515. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national context. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' a practice that artificially inflates productivity. The university's excellent performance in this area suggests a strong institutional commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies, prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over the fragmentation of data for metric-driven purposes.
