Jimei University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jimei University presents a robust and generally stable scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.222 that reflects a balance between significant strengths and specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over core aspects of research quality and authorship, with very low risk signals in retracted output, hyper-authorship, redundant publications, and impact dependency. These strengths indicate mature internal governance and a solid foundation of research ethics. However, vulnerabilities are evident in three key areas: a higher-than-average rate of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals. These medium-risk indicators require focused attention to ensure they do not undermine the institution's broader reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic prowess is particularly notable in fields such as Veterinary, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Medicine. The identified integrity risks, especially those suggesting academic insularity or questionable publication choices, could subtly conflict with the pursuit of global excellence and social trust inherent to any university's mission. By leveraging its demonstrated strengths in quality control, Jimei University has a clear opportunity to develop targeted policies for journal selection and affiliation management, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its thematic and academic ambitions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.105 shows a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.062. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate at Jimei University warrants a closer review. It is crucial to ascertain that these practices reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.587, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, which aligns well with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.050). This low-profile consistency indicates the absence of significant risk signals in this area. Such a result suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. It reflects a strong integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that prevents the type of recurring errors or malpractice that could lead to systemic vulnerabilities and subsequent retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.326, while within a medium-risk band shared by the country (Z-score: 0.045), indicates a high level of exposure as it is significantly more pronounced than the national average. This pattern suggests the institution is more prone to this behavior than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate could signal the presence of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This trend warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.555 represents a moderate deviation from the national Z-score of -0.024, indicating a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk compared to the rest of the country. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.260, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is consistent with and even improves upon the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.721). This demonstrates a commendable alignment with best practices in authorship. The data suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the university effectively avoids author list inflation. This fosters a culture of transparency and ensures that individual accountability is not diluted by honorary or unjustified authorship attributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.135 signifies a total operational silence on this risk, performing even better than the already strong national average (Z-score: -0.809). This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. The institution's high-impact research appears to be structurally rooted in its own capabilities, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.027 contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national Z-score of 0.425, demonstrating significant institutional resilience. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively guards against potential imbalances between quantity and quality, discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a practice consistent with the low-risk national landscape (Z-score: -0.010). This absence of risk signals indicates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house publications, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This approach ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.687 indicates a total operational silence regarding redundant output, surpassing the already very low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.515). This exemplary performance suggests a robust institutional culture that prioritizes substantive contributions over inflated publication metrics. The absence of signals for 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications—demonstrates a commitment to producing coherent, significant new knowledge and respecting the integrity of the scientific record and the peer-review system.