| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.365 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.540 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.725 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.733 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.235 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.090 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.947 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.616 | -0.515 |
Jingdezhen Ceramic University presents a scientific integrity profile characterized by notable strengths in authorship and quality control, alongside specific vulnerabilities in publication strategy and impact dependency. With an overall risk score of 0.086, the institution demonstrates a generally sound operational foundation. Key areas of excellence include exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust internal governance. However, medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, output in discontinued journals, redundant output, and a significant gap in leadership impact suggest that publication and collaboration strategies may be overly focused on quantitative metrics, creating potential reputational risks. The institution's strongest thematic areas, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are Environmental Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Arts and Humanities. While the specific institutional mission was not provided for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to academic endogamy, reliance on predatory publishing channels, and impact dependency—could challenge core academic values of excellence, transparency, and genuine social contribution. It is recommended that the university leverage its clear strengths in research integrity to develop targeted policies that address these strategic vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring that its scientific output is not only plentiful but also sustainable, independent, and of high reputational value.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.365, while the national average is -0.062. Both scores fall within a low-risk range, but the university demonstrates a more prudent profile, managing its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. This suggests a well-controlled approach to collaborations and researcher appointments. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution’s lower rate indicates it is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.540, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, performing significantly better than the country's already low-risk average of -0.050. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive indicator. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest corrections. However, an exceptionally low rate like this suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective and systemically robust, reflecting a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents recurring errors or malpractice.
The university's Z-score of 0.725 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.045, although both are categorized as medium risk. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend 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 community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.733, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.024. This shows a greater institutional sensitivity to this particular risk factor. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a notable portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.235 is in the very low-risk category, far below the national low-risk average of -0.721. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a commendable commitment to transparent and accountable authorship. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, hyper-authorship can indicate inflation of author lists, diluting individual responsibility. The university's excellent result in this area suggests its authorship practices are well-governed and free from 'honorary' or political attributions, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
This indicator presents a monitoring alert, with the institution's Z-score at 0.090 (medium risk) in stark contrast to the country's very low-risk average of -0.809. This unusual risk level for the national context requires a careful review of its causes. A wide positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners and not on its own structural capacity. This signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.947, a very low-risk value that signifies a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average is 0.425 (medium risk). The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This excellent score indicates the university successfully promotes a balance between quantity and quality, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, surpassing the country's low-risk average of -0.010. This strong performance indicates that the university is not overly reliant on its own publication channels. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's low rate demonstrates a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is scrutinized through standard, impartial processes.
A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 1.616 (medium risk), which is an unusually high level compared to the national standard of -0.515 (very low risk). A review of the underlying causes is strongly recommended. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value warns that such practices may be present, potentially distorting the scientific evidence and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
