Jilin Engineering Normal University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jilin Engineering Normal University presents a highly polarized integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.840. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and robust internal governance in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and the management of Hyperprolific Authors, indicating a commendable culture of authorship and citation ethics. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, coupled with a medium-risk alert regarding the institution's dependency on external collaborations for impact. These weaknesses point to systemic vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control and strategic dissemination. The university's recognized thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Engineering, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Chemistry, provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, the identified integrity risks, particularly those related to retractions and questionable publication venues, directly challenge the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility inherent in any academic mission. To safeguard its reputation and the impact of its core research areas, it is recommended that the university leverage its strong governance frameworks to urgently implement enhanced training and stricter oversight protocols for publication channel selection and pre-submission quality assurance.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.229 for this indicator, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.062. This suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. The university's processes appear to be more rigorous than the national standard, ensuring that affiliations are handled with clarity. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates it is effectively avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” or strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby maintaining a transparent and robust profile in its collaborative endeavors.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.723 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.050. This atypical level of risk activity signals an urgent need for a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, and while some may result from honest error correction, a rate this significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential systemic failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture may indicate recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -1.110, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.045. This result reflects a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate shows it successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers'. This suggests that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal dynamics, which is a sign of a healthy, outward-looking research culture.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 8.278 in this indicator, a figure that signals a severe discrepancy with the national average of -0.024. This exceptionally high and atypical risk activity requires immediate and deep assessment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.358 is notably lower than the national average of -0.721, indicating an absence of risk signals in this area. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the university's authorship practices are well-aligned with a controlled national context, and in fact, exceed the standard. This result suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship outside of 'Big Science' contexts, the university promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.164 presents a monitoring alert, as it is an unusual risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This positive gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This situation signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an exceptionally low incidence of hyperprolific authors, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.425. This demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over raw metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution has a Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.010. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a low-profile consistency and a commitment to external validation that aligns well with the national standard. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy where production might bypass independent peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, showing that its output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.523 is in very close alignment with the national average of -0.515. This demonstrates a clear integrity synchrony, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this practice. The data suggests that, like its national peers, the institution effectively prevents the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant contributions rather than prioritizing volume protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.