| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.704 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.681 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.675 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.441 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.088 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.176 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.271 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.955 | -0.515 |
Jilin Normal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.294, which indicates a performance generally superior to the national benchmark. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining the structural quality of its research, with very low risk signals in areas such as retracted output, impact dependency, and redundant publications. These positive indicators are complemented by effective mitigation of national trends toward hyper-prolificacy and institutional self-citation. Key areas of academic strength, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, include Social Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Physics and Astronomy. However, moderate risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Output in Discontinued Journals require strategic attention. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the University's mission to instill "morality" and a "global perspective," as they touch upon the transparency of collaborations and the quality of dissemination channels. To fully align its operational practices with its guiding principles, the institution is encouraged to focus on strengthening its due diligence and affiliation policies, thereby solidifying its commitment to academic excellence and ethical leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.704 shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.062. This suggests the University is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that can inflate affiliation counts. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national norm warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive, transparent, and academically meaningful collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.681, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency indicates that the University's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. A rate significantly lower than the global average is a positive sign of a strong integrity culture, suggesting that methodological rigor and responsible research conduct are well-embedded, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.675 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.045, highlighting a notable institutional resilience. This performance indicates that the University has effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks of endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the institution avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader global community, reinforcing the external recognition of its academic influence rather than relying on internal dynamics.
The University's Z-score of 0.441 represents a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.024, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor. This elevated rate constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into predatory or low-impact outlets.
With a Z-score of -1.088, the institution displays a more prudent profile than the national standard (-0.721). This suggests that the University manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than its peers. By maintaining a low incidence of hyper-authorship outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution effectively avoids potential issues like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.176 signifies a total operational silence in this risk area, performing even better than the low national average of -0.809. This exceptional result indicates that the impact generated by research under the institution's direct leadership is fully aligned with its overall collaborative impact. This demonstrates a high degree of scientific autonomy and structural capacity, confirming that its academic prestige is built on strong internal capabilities rather than being dependent on the leadership of external partners.
The institution's Z-score of -0.271 is markedly lower than the national average of 0.425, demonstrating strong institutional resilience against this risk. This suggests that internal controls or cultural norms are successfully mitigating the systemic trend towards extreme publication volumes seen nationally. By curbing hyperprolificacy, the University fosters a healthier balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of dynamics like coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a near-total absence of this risk, performing well below the national average of -0.010. This low-profile consistency reflects a strong commitment to external, independent validation of its research. By avoiding reliance on its own journals, the University effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is subject to standard competitive peer review and has the opportunity to achieve global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.955 indicates a total absence of this risk signal, a performance that surpasses the already low national average of -0.515. This result strongly suggests that the University's research culture prioritizes the publication of coherent, substantive studies over the fragmentation of data into 'minimal publishable units.' This practice not only upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base but also demonstrates a commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics.
