| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.880 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.568 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.167 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.248 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.231 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.819 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.015 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.543 | -0.515 |
Northeast Electric Power University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a global risk score of -0.167. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance and operational integrity, with very low risk signals in key areas such as leadership impact, authorship transparency, and publication channel selection. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by vulnerabilities in post-publication quality, specifically a medium risk level for retracted output and institutional self-citation, which require strategic attention. These operational metrics support a strong research portfolio, with the institution ranking prominently in the SCImago Institutions Rankings in fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Environmental Science, and Energy. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly concerning retractions and self-citation—pose a potential challenge to the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. A commitment to integrity is fundamental to ensuring that its contributions in these key thematic areas are both impactful and trustworthy. By leveraging its clear strengths in research governance to address these specific vulnerabilities, Northeast Electric Power University can further solidify its reputation as a leader in both scientific discovery and ethical practice.
The institution's Z-score of -0.880 is significantly lower than the country's Z-score of -0.062. This indicates an exemplary and consistent approach to author affiliations, outperforming the already low-risk national standard. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a clear and well-managed policy, effectively preventing strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that all claims to research output are legitimate and transparent.
The institution's Z-score of 0.568 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.050). This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to the factors that lead to publication withdrawals. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This situation suggests a need for immediate qualitative verification by management to address possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
With a Z-score of 0.167, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.045, although both operate within a medium-risk context. This disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work 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 scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.248 is well below the country's Z-score of -0.024, showcasing a prudent profile in its selection of publication venues. This demonstrates that the center manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This low rate indicates that effective due diligence is applied when selecting dissemination channels, successfully avoiding the reputational risks and wasted resources associated with publishing in 'predatory' or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution's Z-score of -1.231 is exceptionally low, positioning it far below the country's already low-risk benchmark of -0.721. This signals exemplary authorship practices and a culture that values transparency and individual accountability. The complete absence of risk signals in this area confirms that the institution effectively prevents the dilution of responsibility that can arise from author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships.
The institution's Z-score of -1.819 indicates a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the strong national average of -0.809. This exceptionally low score is a powerful indicator of scientific sustainability, showing that the impact of research led directly by the institution is robust and self-sufficient. It confirms that the university's scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not on a dependency on external partners.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.015, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.425). This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. This strong governance ensures a healthy balance between productivity and quality, discouraging dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution performs significantly better than the national low-risk standard of -0.010. This practice underscores a strong commitment to seeking independent external peer review and global visibility for its research. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, reinforcing its credibility on the international stage.
The institution's Z-score of -0.543 is in near-perfect alignment with the country's Z-score of -0.515, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its national environment. Both profiles show a negligible risk of redundant publications. This reflects a shared culture that prioritizes scientific substance over volume, indicating that the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern and that research contributions are focused on generating significant new knowledge.
