| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.574 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.371 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.411 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.405 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.502 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.154 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.855 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.625 | -0.515 |
Nankai University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.211 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than many of its peers. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas such as the sustainability of its research impact, avoidance of redundant publications, and responsible use of dissemination channels. These strengths are foundational to its academic reputation. However, two areas require strategic attention: a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a high exposure to risks associated with Hyperprolific Authors. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, warrant monitoring to ensure they do not undermine the institution's high standards. This strong integrity framework supports the university's outstanding performance in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Chemistry (ranked 29th globally), Environmental Science (47th), Energy (63rd), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (76th). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility is directly supported by a low-risk profile. The identified medium-risk signals, if left unaddressed, could create a perception gap between stated values of excellence and observed research practices. We recommend leveraging the university's solid integrity foundation to further amplify its research strengths, while implementing targeted policies and training to moderate the risks associated with authorship and affiliation practices, thereby ensuring a holistic and sustainable model of academic leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.574, which contrasts with the national average of -0.062. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate suggests a need to review the underlying drivers. This trend could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" to a degree not seen elsewhere in the country, warranting a closer examination of collaboration and appointment policies to ensure they align with principles of transparency and fair credit attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national standard, which stands at -0.050. This result suggests that the university manages its pre-publication quality control processes with greater rigor than the average in China. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national benchmark is a positive indicator of a robust integrity culture. It suggests that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and responsible supervision are highly effective, minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to subsequent retractions and reinforcing its commitment to reliable science.
The institution's Z-score of -0.411 is notably lower than the national average of 0.045, demonstrating significant institutional resilience. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more pronounced at the national level. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the country's score points towards a broader tendency for 'echo chambers.' In contrast, Nankai University's low score suggests it successfully avoids endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its work is validated by sufficient external scrutiny and that its academic influence is a result of global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.405, a signal of very low risk that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.024). This absence of risk signals demonstrates an exemplary level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Such a low rate indicates that the university's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality publishing practices. This protects the institution from severe reputational harm and confirms a strong culture of information literacy, ensuring that valuable research resources are not wasted on channels that lack international ethical or quality standards.
With a Z-score of -0.502, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.721. This score points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while the issue is not widespread, the university shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. Hyper-authorship can be legitimate in 'Big Science,' but this minor uptick compared to the national context serves as a signal to ensure that extensive author lists consistently reflect genuine collaboration. It is an opportunity to proactively reinforce policies that distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.154 represents a state of total operational silence in this risk indicator, performing even better than the strong national average of -0.809. This is a significant strength, indicating that the university's scientific prestige is structural and not dependent on external partners for impact. A highly negative score demonstrates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is exceptionally robust. This reflects a sustainable research ecosystem built on real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a key marker of a world-class research institution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.855 indicates high exposure to this risk, a level notably more pronounced than the national average of 0.425. This suggests the university is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated score warns of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This dynamic, which prioritizes metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, requires immediate management attention.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, aligning with and improving upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This consistency reflects a healthy approach to scholarly communication. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication and for maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.625 signifies a total operational silence regarding this risk, a performance that is even stronger than the already excellent national average of -0.515. This result is a clear indicator of a research culture that prioritizes substantive contributions over artificial productivity metrics. The data confirms a robust institutional stance against the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units. By avoiding data fragmentation, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the global peer review system, focusing on the generation of significant new knowledge.
